Jump to content

Hugh Adam responds to Murray


BlueThunder

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

As I've said before I'd the misfortune to have business dealings with him 20 odd years ago and he was a mad old bastard then.

I'm the last person to defend David Murray but I'd believe him before Adam any day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The senile old fool doesn't seem to care about the damage he's doing to the Club.

Another charlatan who was quite happy to sit in silence as long as he had a Club blazer.

These guys aren't so much whistleblowers, more the geek who wanted to run with the cool kids but at the first sign of trouble turns turtle and grasses everyone up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

On the day that SFA president Campbell Ogilvie admitted having an EBT, but stressed that since the mid-1990s he’d had no part in administrating contracts, Adam concurred, saying: ‘Campbell would only have been a nominal general secretary. David (Murray) was secretive and kept these things to himself.’

I think we can see what is fueling this. He doesn't care about harming Rangers as he only has one target in mind here and it doesn't matter if he damages us in the process.

Anyway, if Murray kept these things secretive then how the eff does Adam know.

Additionally...

‘I always said there were separate contracts. I said that quite deliberately,’ he added.

Didn't he say in the last interview that there were NO side contracts, that was the whole point? IE Players got bonuses form whatever source, but not in a contractual form.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The senile old fool doesn't seem to care about the damage he's doing to the Club.

He also seems to be a bit confused.. Saying it 'should have been part of the wages'. Both his statements have been a bit all over the place, or has it just been a really long day for me?

Link to post
Share on other sites

EXCLUSIVE: You're wrong! Adam hits out at Sir Davids EBTs defenceBy John Mcgarry

PUBLISHED: 22:49, 14 March 2012

Hugh Adam has railed against Sir David Murrays defence of EBTs, claiming they were simply part of the Ibrox stars salaries.

Murray broke his silence on Tuesday to confirm the two main allegations Adam made in Sportsmail last month.

The man who created Rangers Pools claimed EBTs had been used in the 1990s and that they had been excluded from player contracts registered with the SFA and SPL.

If true, the second allegation would be in direct contravention of both bodies rules on player registration, which demand full disclosure of all remuneration.

Having seen both bodies launch investigations in the past week, Murray defended the use of EBTs by insisting there was no obligation to detail them in contracts as there was no contractual entitlement on the part of the players.

Adam, however, responded by insisting that, far from being discretionary, the money paid via EBTs was, in effect, wages.

It was effectively salary and should have been included in the players wage slips, he said. It was a way of attracting players into the club. I think he (Murray) was aware that if he did that, the players would be quite happy and would stay with Rangers. If someone can give you an extra twenty grand a year that you dont have to account for, then youd jump at it.

I dont see how you can have that kind of contract and just take a bit out of it as you go along.

If you were trying to attract players, you had to get money from all sources. He probably wouldnt have been paying them enough in the ordinary way.

Although Murray has denied the existence of a second contract containing EBT payments, employment lawyers who examined a back letter given to an unnamed player detailing bonuses believed it to be a de facto contract.

Adam maintains that whatever shape it is in, there exist written agreements detailing remuneration which were not lodged with the authorities.

I always said there were separate contracts. I said that quite deliberately, he added. If there hadnt been, they would have been in the main books. It wasnt included in the standard contract. Thats a certainty.

On the day that SFA president Campbell Ogilvie admitted having an EBT, but stressed that since the mid-1990s hed had no part in administrating contracts, Adam concurred, saying: Campbell would only have been a nominal general secretary. David (Murray) was secretive and kept these things to himself.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2115140/Rangers-crisis-David-Murray-wrong--Hugh-Adam.html#ixzz1p8ZXEHUB

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're in any doubt over the complexities of tax law, and employment law, be sure to add some guy in his dotage who used to be involved in a different role at a football club, and left it under a cloud of bitterness. Scottish Media version of an expert witness.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I thought you were suggesting we should believe Murray over Adam. That it was a senile old man's fault that our club has been financially mismanaged for over a decade.

No, I didn't say that. Murray's watch so his responsibility.

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

    No upcoming events found

×
×
  • Create New...