TMB 14,167 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 I have a quick question regarding his EBT and wondered if anyone could shed some light.Rangers used EBTs which were perfectly legal at that time. The SFA panel ruled that although no sporting advantage was ever gained, the side letters were a breach of rules. Rangers were fined for the side letters.Okay, so Celtic had an EBT with Juninho. Most Celtic fans claim that because Celtic paid whatever tax had been previously avoided that makes it okay. It obviously doesn't but I can understand why HMRC wouldn't persue them. The amount of money is small and Celtic paid it anyway. However, aren't Celtic guilty of breaking the same rules Rangers did with regards to the side letters? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spectre 1,663 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 Yes, well, potentially, they're not guilty in that they've never faced the charge but it would appear they should have faced the charge but it does wonders when you're chief exec is pals with the guys in charge. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tannerall 25,935 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 You been hiding in a cave for the past two decades ? As everyone knows the corrupt and biased SFA have three rules of governing football:Rule 1) The Rangers rule which states "If Rangers are involved throw the rule book at them, then pick the rule book up and fine them for the use of said book.Rule 2) The Cellic rule which states: "Nothing to see here."Rule 3) The Every Other Team rule: "Throw random rule books at some of them occasionally, all the the other teams will be too frightened to complain" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OlegKuznetsov 10,816 Posted December 18, 2014 Share Posted December 18, 2014 I have a quick question regarding his EBT and wondered if anyone could shed some light.Rangers used EBTs which were perfectly legal at that time. The SFA panel ruled that although no sporting advantage was ever gained, the side letters were a breach of rules. Rangers were fined for the side letters.Okay, so Celtic had an EBT with Juninho. Most Celtic fans claim that because Celtic paid whatever tax had been previously avoided that makes it okay. It obviously doesn't but I can understand why HMRC wouldn't persue them. The amount of money is small and Celtic paid it anyway. However, aren't Celtic quilty of breaking the same rules Rangers did with regards to the side letters?Yes, but there was no outcry about their case, nor was there a wee group of our fans leaking documents pertaining to their tax affairs.Furthermore, we didn't have a very high-ranking government minister in negotiations to join our board, just at the time ceptic abandoned EBTs and HMRC started focusing on Rangers more than any other UK companies despite there being numerous much larger and for more clean cut cases. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Educator 1,572 Posted December 19, 2014 Share Posted December 19, 2014 The big question about this one is whether or not someone at HMRC approached "them" to make sure they settled as they knew what was about to be levelled at Rangers and the approach that was going to be taken, thus making sure that they would not be caught up in it all. Don't forget HMRC cut deals with a number of clubs and indeed the biggest deal was with the guy from F1.It would seem that the only club that was not to be allowed a deal was Rangers even though SM offered them £10m. If somebody could prove that the same person who cut a deal with "them" was also responsible for the way the Rangers case has been handled it would go a long way to proving that there was a specific agenda being used in the Rangers case. I do wonder if we may find further down the road hat somebody involved with HMRC case was either an undisclosed shareholder in "them" or had some other lose links to that club. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BertContraband 282 Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 I think it was to do with non disclosure on our part. Not sure if they disclosed juninho ebt though. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 16,005 Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 I think it was to do with non disclosure on our part. Not sure if they disclosed juninho ebt though.They didn't but of course nothing to see here. They didn't even declare theirs in the accounts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ibroxblue 122 Posted December 21, 2014 Share Posted December 21, 2014 I think it was to do with non disclosure on our part. Not sure if they disclosed juninho ebt though.I recall a BBC report saying they did not disclose it to the SFA.The setting up of an EBT was mentioned in their accounts but that's true of us as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Murtaugh 47 Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 I think it was to do with non disclosure on our part. Not sure if they disclosed juninho ebt though. Care to explain further? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dummiesoot 16,005 Posted December 23, 2014 Share Posted December 23, 2014 Care to explain further?Good question, we were open in our accounts about ebt and the sfa, sellick hid theirs, paid the tax man when Dr death got tipped the wink. They never got investigated by the SFA or sfl even though they did hide theirs. 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.