Dual Contract Charges: Another day, another blow

[Guardian 4,281]

This is their play to have our titles withdrawn.

It's not about punishing us going forward.

The Bheast detests that they are second place to us, this has been their end game all along.

Finally others may see this.

Exactly what I was going to post.

Now that we've been punished for all the rest, they are coming after our titles as well.

I've been saying for ages the club needs to take a stand and draw a line and not wait til we lose our titles as well.

They won't stop kicking us til we hit back.

[nelsonRFC82 305]

If it was proven that we've broken a rule by not informing the SPL and SFA of the EBT payments (which given by the HMRC court case has not yet been proven was a contractual right), what exactly does it mean?

Why would it be a major crime in the order of stripping titles? That has to be some very serious rule breach to remove titles from a club, does the fact that we have audited accounts and AGMs discussing it every year not point to the fact we weren't hiding it?

It's not as if we agreed for a very wealthy individual to pay our players because we couldn't afford to was it?

The club has always believed it acted legally and in accordance with all rules. Surely if HMRC win their case then it's entirely justifiably that we did not set out to intentionally mislead anyone, or obtain the services of players that were paid by someone else?

No they don't need justification or reasoning, they will just bury us in buzz words like financial doping and sporting integrity!

[ray 105]

Why are we constantly on the defensive get ripped into these fucks, the last time we did we kicked their arse good and proper.

[Shuggy 1,308]

I don't quite understand this dual-contract thing. The charge is that Rangers did not inform the SFA/SPL of these EBT payments. What I don't get is what would Rangers have gained from not declaring them? There was nothing to hide, EBTs were not illegal, what would be the point in hiding them?

Was it an oversight on Rangers part or did they simply not regard them as contracts?

Confused.

Shuggy

[Gillete 1,338]

Sick of this pish

Hurry up and give us the worst then we can start the fight back and burying all you bastards

[WilliamFyfe 1,438]

Shower of bastards

[Captain Hilts 12,819]

something i don't understand here: if all our debt was left with the oldco, why hasn't this dual contract pish done the same? shouldn't it be murray who's being punished instead of the club??

[Super1872 469]

To be fair, in terms of the club v company discussion IF (and obviously still has to be proven) we have broken rules in relation to registration/declaration of payments..then I believe that is something the club, correctly, has to answer for. In fact, it completely vindicates the opinion that the history of the club must be retained under the newco.

However the chances of us getting a fair hearing (the stripping of titles has been a taig-driven agenda for long enough) is doubtful!

What sort of defence we can realistically put up given it is the actions of previous owners is also debatable!

Also, as I said above, there will also be a complete lack of acknowledgement of any failings on the part of the SFA/SPL.

Yes , I agree that IF we have broken rules then we do need to deal with that. However I don't see how It will be possible as you quite rightly state for our current owners to defend the actions of a board they had nothing to do with

Also I can't see how they think we have a something to answer for when that really hinges on the outcome of the EBT case because if they rule that they were not contracts then we have nothing to answer for re double contracts.

Like you say as well I too dont expect there will be any aknowlegement from them regarding their failings in the matter. Totally inept.

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

I'm sure this will be another case of our regulatory bodies washing their hands of all responsibility and blaming big bad Rangers, but answer this:

We submit audited accounts to SFA every year as part of obtaining UEFA licence. Within these accounts it has been clearly documented that we implemented a tax avoidance scheme in the form of an EBT. Of course it does not detail payments per player but shows payments that varied year on year but in total around £25-30m. Over the same period we must of lodged the players contracts with SFA/SPL for registration.

Did nobody at any point think to ask the question why does your accounts show salary costs of £25-30m more than the contracts you have presented to us?

Nail on head

[Understated 10]

something i don't understand here: if all our debt was left with the oldco, why hasn't this dual contract pish done the same? shouldn't it be murray who's being punished instead of the club??

I think it's because the history of the club has remained intact, and therefore open to attack.

[JRodgA2k8 542]

Wait hold on...so despite the fact our titles apparently no longer count they can possibly withdraw them...yeah alright, can't have it both ways in terms of history.

Case to answer sounds as if pending investigation there will be a hearing into the contracts, not found Guilty of anything yet but could be if that is the verdict after the hearing.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

A bloke next to me in the pub just uttered the phrase "civil disobedience".

Can't think for the life of me what he was talking about.

Me neither, so I can't condemn it.

I hear it's fast becoming the rage.

I've been told something may be stopping other matches.

I don't know what that is, but it wouldn't take much to stop a match every weekend.

[bear822 80]

Don't see how the SPL can prove any guilt in a couple of months, when HMRC can't after a couple of years.

[WilliamFyfe 1,438]

We better fight back

[CHAMPS4LIFE 86]

should lower Greens price for the club if there could be financial penalties ... wait and see the other clubs 180 and vote us back in just to see us hammered

[marvinsmarvels 13]

we have a prima facie case to answer with the spl.

prima facie – at first appearance or sight. A prima facie case is one which, at first sight, appears compelling and calls for an answer.

a decent lawyer could probably get this won for us.

[Super1872 469]

So....when's the march for this?

[LegendofCoop 17,441]

I'd be more relaxed/concerned if we were told to what extent this 'case to answer' actually goes to. I mean, is it a couple of players....is it every player who had an EBT??

We have previously admitted wrong with the De Boer EBT, could it just be that it's him and one or two others??

[CHAMPS4LIFE 86]

doesnt really matter anyway we will just go to the scottish courts

[Douglas Cameron 179]

Statement from Celtic to the BBC today.

"Celtic confirmed that it established one EBT scheme in April 2005, which BBC Scotland understands was for the benefit of the Brazilian midfielder Juninho Paulista. The scheme was worth £765,000 but the club did not declare the trust payment to the Scottish Football Association or the Scottish Premier League."

They paid up 3 years later to HMRC though.

The HMRC payment is not the issue though in terms of football regulations. The issue is not disclosing/registering with the football authorities. Celtic have therefore clearly admitted to a breach. This is though whataboutery and doesn't change the issue we face. I don't think anyone can seriously object to the statement there is a case to answer.

In general when a business and assets deal is done the newco has no liability regarding anything that went on with the oldco. That is the basic reason for doing such a deal instead of just buying the shares. However, the point made repeatedly by myself and others (shameless plug) is that in this case the football club is distinct from the company. If Rangers owned by Sevco (Green's consortium) is answerable in football regulation terms for the rule breaches of Rangers owned by Rangers Football Club plc (Murray/Whyte) then it is beyond question THE SAME club. I am tempted to say this brings the debate to an end as nobody can reasonably argue that you are responsible for the historical financial misdeeds but are unable to claim the rest of the club's history. In reality though debate gave way to a primal scream quite some time ago.

[CHAMPS4LIFE 86]

So....when's the march for this?

cant have two marches! Dual Marches are frowned upon not illegal but frowned upon lol

[hemdale1873 167]

Prima facie case??? the exact words that a certain Rangers hating site used a few weeks back.

Guess we know who is pulling the strings here.

[delamonty 992]

I'm seriously starting to believe they do actually want to bury us.

I can see us not being allowed into the SPL, followed by the SFL refusing us a place. Seriously. It's starting to look that bad for us.

Yup... getting the same feeling mate... Becoming very, very obvious. How stupid are they? Basically ripping up an 80 million pound TV deal in the process. You could not make this up. OK, SKY won't pull the plug for one year (allegedly.. but ... the deal will be worth 20 quid per year).

Very sad state of affairs

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

The HMRC payment is not the issue though in terms of football regulations. The issue is not disclosing/registering with the football authorities. Celtic have therefore clearly admitted to a breach. This is though whataboutery and doesn't change the issue we face. I don't think anyone can seriously object to the statement there is a case to answer.

In general when a business and assets deal is done the newco has no liability regarding anything that went on with the oldco. That is the basic reason for doing such a deal instead of just buying the shares. However, the point made repeatedly by myself and others (shameless plug) is that in this case the football club is distinct from the company. If Rangers owned by Sevco (Green's consortium) is answerable in football regulation terms for the rule breaches of Rangers owned by Rangers Football Club plc (Murray/Whyte) then it is beyond question THE SAME club. I am tempted to say this brings the debate to an end as nobody can reasonably argue that you are responsible for the historical financial misdeeds but are unable to claim the rest of the club's history. In reality though debate gave way to a primal scream quite some time ago.

Whataboutery is a term used to restrict the scope of a supposedly moral action.

In reality, a desire for an objective appraisal is dismissed for a trendy term.

[ray 105]

Any unlawful interference or hindrance of HMRC investigations and procedures could constitute a criminal offence punishable by an unlimited fine, a prison sentence of two years or both.

Time for Keen to earn his corn once again.

To put it another way the FTTT are held in HM Courts and Tribunal Services a system of the courts, the upper tribunal where any appeal if granted would go is a "court of record" fucking with a court of record never mind a tribunal that is still to deliver a decision is not advisable, it equates to contempt of court.