Jump to content

Sporting Advantage


BryceRFC1

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, hammer93 said:

I'm no expert on the tax laws but were we just fortunate to receive the information on ebts......imagine that Rangers been exclusive in a tax avoidance scheme......the answer to that is no off course....ebts were being used in England by many a club that's why hmrc tried so hard to get a ruling that they were actually illegal.

We have been the guinea pigs in this whole saga, many a club owner will be expecting the chap on the door from the tax man in the coming years, we are not unique in this case we are just the first club to be targetted.

Whether it's ebts, bogus film companies or lack of corporation tax being paid it all amounts to the same.

There is still a part of me that thinks no one will actually get chapped. 

I know that sounds like paranoia, and that is what it is, but it just feels like our club are constantly having to fight their corner - whilst others can make up rules and break them as they go. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 131
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

45 minutes ago, Ryju84 said:

There is still a part of me that thinks no one will actually get chapped. 

I know that sounds like paranoia, and that is what it is, but it just feels like our club are constantly having to fight their corner - whilst others can make up rules and break them as they go. 

If they don't then this whole case has been pointless, why waste all the time energy and money to win the case against us to get next to fuck all back, clubs in England who were using ebts can be chased for whatever revenue they believe they are entitled to.

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, bluenose48 said:

The big difference is that it is Celtic doing this and not us.

Can you imagine the hue and cry if that had been our directors.

But no it was Celtic, so they are allowed.

The mhedia have long since made up their minds that timmy are the good guys we are the bad guys and the news is reported accordingly 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So Davie Hay wants title stripping?

Okay then lets start with 1986 when he was manager of celtic on the day they won the title at St Mirren.

Sandy Clark who has gone on record about this was told by a number of ex-St Mirren players that they deliberately cheated and let Celtic gain a 5-0 win that day coincidentally just the exact score-line they needed to win the league by?

You even had an ex-SM player come out in a book and admit in his words he "never tried a leg" that day.

But that's okay cause players admitting they let celtic win is not cheating or match fixing in his eyes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Alves70 said:

So Davie Hay wants title stripping?

Okay then lets start with 1986 when he was manager of celtic on the day they won the title at St Mirren.

Sandy Clark who has gone on record about this was told by a number of ex-St Mirren players that they deliberately cheated and let Celtic gain a 5-0 win that day coincidentally just the exact score-line they needed to win the league by?

You even had an ex-SM player come out in a book and admit in his words he "never tried a leg" that day.

But that's okay cause players admitting they let celtic win is not cheating or match fixing in his eyes.

 

There's title no1 gone??

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Thermopylae said:

The mhedia have long since made up their minds that timmy are the good guys we are the bad guys and the news is reported accordingly 

I don't think that's the use of bogus film companies is a valid argument as they were individual investments and not a club wide incentive correct me if I'm wrong.

No titles will be stripped, no asterisks. Football is played on the field the men who took part were winners. They did nothing wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Hutton2008 said:

I don't think that's the use of bogus film companies is a valid argument as they were individual investments and not a club wide incentive correct me if I'm wrong.

No titles will be stripped, no asterisks. Football is played on the field the men who took part were winners. They did nothing wrong.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/pm-companies-to-be-liable-for-employees-who-facilitate-tax-cheating

 

If retrospective sanctions can be brought against Rangers after a rule change then why not the peados?

Film schemes is regarded as tax cheating whilst EBT's are avoidance, the fines should take that into consideration also.

"This is the latest of a number of government measures designed to tackle illicit finance and tax dodging. These include a new criminal offence for corporations that fail to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion, and new sanctions against those who engage in multiple avoidance schemes which are defeated by HMRC."

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bluematters said:

Sound good but will never happen, unfortunately 

The media push and will from the relevant authorities in Scotland is just not there. If the illegal tax avoidance scheme was giving the same relevance than the legal tax evasion scheme then the scum would be in trouble.

 I believe HMRC has the power today to claim money back from the employers if they can't get the money from the employees, also seemingly able to hold the company under criminal charges if they facilitate employees participating in illegal schemes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 06/07/2017 at 9:08 PM, coopsleftboot said:

Just a wee point of note here, it was not illegal.  It was an argument over whether tax was due, that's all.  It has now been decided tax is due.  What would be illegal would be a refusal to pay the tax.

I'm just going to put this out here and take the flak that will inevitably come my way.

This thread has some of the most illogical thinking I've read in a while and I think we are in danger of misleading ourselves:

HMRC have always said the EBTs were illegal (or used language such as "we think this tax scam does not work"). HMRC are the tax authority, we disputed it and lost. The tax schemes were illegal hence the decision. If they were legal we would have won.

They were not legal at the time. We gave players side letters. It was simply a redirection of earings. The club deliberatley mislead/denied/forgot to decalre the side letters and tax issues to the authorites (HMRC and SFA).

SDM has admitted under oath that we used the schemes to attract players we couldn't have otherwise have afforded. He said this on the stand at the FTT and again at the CW trial. Other witnesses admitted the same. DK also admitted that we used schemes to attract players and said we "probably" gained a sporting advantage. His latest statement is counter to his previous now deflects the blame/advantage on to Murray group rather than Rangers. Admirable but wrong (see last sentence).

In order to demonstrate that a sporting advantage was not gained we would have to show that every one of the players on EBTs would have signed for us anyway. Maybe DK is going to pull that rabbit out of the hat one day. Until that day comes we cannot assume that the players would have signed a contract if they were going to get 40% less pay.

Schemes used by cellic players/sugar puff teeth etc: As far as I am aware the individuals paid tax on their earnings from cellic and so after this were free to use their money as they see fit and take the associated risks - if this results in schemes that are deemed tax evasion then great but cellic are in the clear because PAYE and NIC were paid at source, or at least there is no evidence to the contrary.

The issue of other players, Ronaldo Messi etc: Unless I'm mistaken, this is to do with their image rights and them scamming tax authorities (rather than their clubs redirecting their earnings and scamming the tax authorities).

Re Athletico Madrid not paying tax: The point here is that they are paying it back - 120 million Euros at 4.5% to be paid by 2020.

We are not and will not pay the tax back.

If we simply accepted HMRCs position at the first time of asking then the liability, penalities and interest would have been a lot less and we could have started payting of off over a number of years like (like Athletico).

But we didn't.

SDM decided to fight this all the way and we are where we are as a consequence of this.

The advantage to Rangers was saving about £2 million a year in wages because the alternative was the prospect of paying about £2 million a year more on wages and correctly deducting tax.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

I'm just going to put this out here and take the flak that will inevitably come my way.

This thread has some of the most illogical thinking I've read in a while and I think we are in danger of misleading ourselves:

HMRC have always said the EBTs were illegal (or used language such as "we think this tax scam does not work"). HMRC are the tax authority, we disputed it and lost. The tax schemes were illegal hence the decision. If they were legal we would have won.

They were not legal at the time. We gave players side letters. It was simply a redirection of earings. The club deliberatley mislead/denied/forgot to decalre the side letters and tax issues to the authorites (HMRC and SFA).

SDM has admitted under oath that we used the schemes to attract players we couldn't have otherwise have afforded. He said this on the stand at the FTT and again at the CW trial. Other witnesses admitted the same. DK also admitted that we used schemes to attract players and said we "probably" gained a sporting advantage. His latest statement is counter to his previous now deflects the blame/advantage on to Murray group rather than Rangers. Admirable but wrong (see last sentence).

In order to demonstrate that a sporting advantage was not gained we would have to show that every one of the players on EBTs would have signed for us anyway. Maybe DK is going to pull that rabbit out of the hat one day. Until that day comes we cannot assume that the players would have signed a contract if they were going to get 40% less pay.

Schemes used by cellic players/sugar puff teeth etc: As far as I am aware the individuals paid tax on their earnings from cellic and so after this were free to use their money as they see fit and take the associated risks - if this results in schemes that are deemed tax evasion then great but cellic are in the clear because PAYE and NIC were paid at source, or at least there is no evidence to the contrary.

The issue of other players, Ronaldo Messi etc: Unless I'm mistaken, this is to do with their image rights and them scamming tax authorities (rather than their clubs redirecting their earnings and scamming the tax authorities).

Re Athletico Madrid not paying tax: The point here is that they are paying it back - 120 million Euros at 4.5% to be paid by 2020.

We are not and will not pay the tax back.

If we simply accepted HMRCs position at the first time of asking then the liability, penalities and interest would have been a lot less and we could have started payting of off over a number of years like (like Athletico).

But we didn't.

SDM decided to fight this all the way and we are where we are as a consequence of this.

The advantage to Rangers was saving about £2 million a year in wages because the alternative was the prospect of paying about £2 million a year more on wages and correctly deducting tax.

 

 

Wow.

First things first.  EBTs had no bearing in law whatsoever, they were a vehicle for receiving money that, at the time, was believed to be a means of avoiding paying tax.  HMRC believed otherwise and challenged. It was, and remains, an interpretation of tax rules that went through tribunals and appeals over 7 years to get a definitive answer.  So it's nothing to do with legality...like a civil case, interpretation was challenged and now a precedent is set.  It's now abided by and HMRC will get what they're due via the CVA, but they were in it more for the precedent.

Secondly, HMRC WERE offered to meet and settle, like others perceived "offenders" before, but declined.  They'd already decided we were going to be the test case...teed up to be so by our beast from the east.  

Thirdly, Murray, and others, had used words such as "unlikely" and "perhaps" when they were referring to the likelihood of definitives whether players could be purchased or not.

you start your thread with statements about "illogical thinking" then proceed along a totally uninformed path...one I've only ever seen trodden by those who get their information from kerrydale.  Makes you wonder...

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, coopsleftboot said:

Wow.

First things first.  EBTs had no bearing in law whatsoever, they were a vehicle for receiving money that, at the time, was believed to be a means of avoiding paying tax.  HMRC believed otherwise and challenged. It was, and remains, an interpretation of tax rules that went through tribunals and appeals over 7 years to get a definitive answer.  So it's nothing to do with legality...like a civil case, interpretation was challenged and now a precedent is set.  It's now abided by and HMRC will get what they're due via the CVA, but they were in it more for the precedent.

Secondly, HMRC WERE offered to meet and settle, like others perceived "offenders" before, but declined.  They'd already decided we were going to be the test case...teed up to be so by our beast from the east.  

Thirdly, Murray, and others, had used words such as "unlikely" and "perhaps" when they were referring to the likelihood of definitives whether players could be purchased or not.

you start your thread with statements about "illogical thinking" then proceed along a totally uninformed path...one I've only ever seen trodden by those who get their information from kerrydale.  Makes you wonder...

Doesn't make me wonder, he is  a mhanky bastard

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, coopsleftboot said:

Wow.

First things first.  EBTs had no bearing in law whatsoever, they were a vehicle for receiving money that, at the time, was believed to be a means of avoiding paying tax.  HMRC believed otherwise and challenged. It was, and remains, an interpretation of tax rules that went through tribunals and appeals over 7 years to get a definitive answer.  So it's nothing to do with legality...like a civil case, interpretation was challenged and now a precedent is set.  It's now abided by and HMRC will get what they're due via the CVA, but they were in it more for the precedent.

Secondly, HMRC WERE offered to meet and settle, like others perceived "offenders" before, but declined.  They'd already decided we were going to be the test case...teed up to be so by our beast from the east.  

Thirdly, Murray, and others, had used words such as "unlikely" and "perhaps" when they were referring to the likelihood of definitives whether players could be purchased or not.

you start your thread with statements about "illogical thinking" then proceed along a totally uninformed path...one I've only ever seen trodden by those who get their information from kerrydale.  Makes you wonder...

I have had the worst week of my life mate. I'm just reading piece after piece and the "evidnece" on the other is absoluteley damning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

I'm just going to put this out here and take the flak that will inevitably come my way.

This thread has some of the most illogical thinking I've read in a while and I think we are in danger of misleading ourselves:

HMRC have always said the EBTs were illegal (or used language such as "we think this tax scam does not work"). HMRC are the tax authority, we disputed it and lost. The tax schemes were illegal hence the decision. If they were legal we would have won.

Provide me with a link to this (not the daily record or 'phil four names' but a link from hmrc)

I'll forward it to my accountant asa as he'll have lots to answer for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Virtuoso said:

Another obsessed fenian bastard in the mould of Ill Phil :sarcasm:

 

Thanks Virtuoso, I didn't expect that....it really adds something to the debate when you simply shut up shop and claim the other is a fenian...have you got anything sensible to say?

Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TrueBluez1972 said:

I have had the worst week of my life mate. I'm just reading piece after piece and the "evidnece" on the other is absoluteley damning.

However bad your week is, it can always be worse. 

Imagine supporting a team that allowed the systematic abuse of young boys. Added to that the immoral abuse of power to receive cheap loans to allow them to continue playing football. 

Theres a far bigger story here and the horrible bastards will get what's coming. 

Also try getting your information from more reliable sources. 

https://amp.ft.com/content/2dccf1fe-04a1-11e6-96e5-f85cb08b0730

"But the proposed legislation — which was initiated before the furore over the Panama Papers — criminalises the “failure to prevent” the facilitation of evasion for the first time and puts obligations on corporates to monitor their employees, agents and subsidiaries."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Upcoming Events

    • 30 March 2024 15:00 Until 17:00
      0  
      Rangers v Hibernian
      Ibrox Stadium
      Scottish Premiership

×
×
  • Create New...