glesgabear81 24 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The argument is that by using the EBT scheme we as a club were able to purchase and pay players that we would not normally have been able to afford.Player X wants 40k per week take home pay, it would cost the club a lot more than 40k with tax add ons. Using the ebt makes the player affordable.I fucking hate that this is happening but we have to face it head on, the allegation is not that it was a bonus payment or a loan, its that it was a contractual payment set up to avoid paying tax. EBT's are not illegal but its against SFA rules not to declare all contractual payments to players.Until the investigation is complete people will say that Rangers gained a sporting advantage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosesMcNeil 1,664 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 To everyone involved in this whole saga, and that includes us bluenoses too.Could someone make a definitive decision on what the difference is between the oldco and newco?It's a complete irrelevance - they could be peas in a pod when you get right down to it.The Rangers is something above and beyond any mere company charged with running the club on our behalf. And I say on our behalf because we, the support, are the club. Without us it does not and cannot exist.I've said it before - the suits and their companies come and go - we, The Rangers, are the constant. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueshoff 11,529 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 We're a newco when it suits the taigs and mhedia who bash us about lost history and being a new 'club' and that we've broken the link between old and new so therefore, 'new' Rangers.. However when it comes to the SFA, SPL, we're still very much connected to the oldco for the purposes of fucking us over with draconian punishments... These aresholes have a bone now and they won't let it gothis Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregor Stevens Fan Club 42 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 It's a complete irrelevance - they could be peas in a pod when you get right down to it.The Rangers is something above and beyond any mere company charged with running the club on our behalf. And I say on our behalf because we, the support, are the club. Without us it does not and cannot exist.I've said it before - the suits and their companies come and go - we, The Rangers, are the constant.As Craig Brown once said - "I don't support the NewCo, I didn't support the OldCo - I support the Rangers !!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
.Williamson. 81,469 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The oldco signed papes.The newco doesn'tMore or less sums it up Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosesMcNeil 1,664 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 As Craig Brown once said - "I don't support the NewCo, I didn't support the OldCo - I support the Rangers !!"I'll never forgive him... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3Proddie1690 132 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The argument is that by using the EBT scheme we as a club were able to purchase and pay players that we would not normally have been able to afford.Player X wants 40k per week take home pay, it would cost the club a lot more than 40k with tax add ons. Using the ebt makes the player affordable.I fucking hate that this is happening but we have to face it head on, the allegation is not that it was a bonus payment or a loan, its that it was a contractual payment set up to avoid paying tax. EBT's are not illegal but its against SFA rules not to declare all contractual payments to players.Until the investigation is complete people will say that Rangers gained a sporting advantage.Nope, sorry pal but that's not altogether true either. Barry Ferguson recieved around £12m during his time at Glasgow Rangers, he also got £2.6m through the EBT scheme, now, are you telling me that we couldn't have have just gave him the money and paid the PAYE and NI on that figure? C'mon buddy we've already gave him about 12m spondoolies through the books... Now, if we had gave said player the FULL amount, every week, through an offshore account then you argument would hold a little more water... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigblueyonder 11,155 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 EBT's were used to cover Murrays' syphoning of money out the club... sporting advantage my arse...There is clear precedence(Leeds,Middlesbourgh/Napoli/Fiorentina) that we are the same club, the mere talk of a continuation of punishment further cements this. The company changes the club remains the same. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
glesgabear81 24 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Nope, sorry pal but that's not altogether true either. Barry Ferguson recieved around £12m during his time at Glasgow Rangers, he also got £2.6m through the EBT scheme, now, are you telling me that we couldn't have have just gave him the money and paid the PAYE and NI on that figure? C'mon buddy we've already gave him about 12m spondoolies through the books... Now, if we had gave said player the FULL amount, every week, through an offshore account then you argument would hold a little more water...Its not my argument, its my take on what the allegation against the club is.(if the player was paid the full amount through EBT then there wouldn't be a dual contract issue). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
offminorthreat 1,458 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 The oldco signed papes.The newco doesn'tShit, good point. Maybe we need to reconsider Novo coming home! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3Proddie1690 132 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Its not my argument, its my take on what the allegation against the club is.(if the player was paid the full amount through EBT then there wouldn't be a dual contract issue).The SFA/SPL have known about this scheme since its inception, it was all declared in our annual accounts, their just being cunts.. Using the paedo's legal team to investigate this issue is a direct conflict of interest, that just makes it even worse couse you can bet your bottom dollar those bastards will find what they need to have us fucked over.. Wonder if they'd be happy with Donald Findlay going through their accounts and documents! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyalfollower 1,543 Posted July 17, 2012 Share Posted July 17, 2012 Only difference is a bit of paper Quote Link to post 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.