What competitive advantage

[Glowingmonkeyhead 62]

I posted on this two months ago and my opinnion has not changed

"I've heard quite a lot of guff talked about the possibility that we may be stripped of titles if it can be proved that Rangers players had contracts not disclosed to the SPL/SFA. Now I don't think we have had hidden contracts but even if we did so what!

Now please let me know if I am wrong but there is not and never has been a cap on players wages.

So

How have Rangers had a competitive advantage over any other team by not disclosing contracts?

If we wanted to pay someone a million pounds a month its not against SPL/SFA laws if we disclose it but if we pay a player £20k a week under one contract we disclose and £10k a week by another contract we don't disclose then its CHEATING!! How the F**k is it?

Yes a rule may have been broken but no sporting advantage has been gained so how can titles be stripped off us. Its an administration issue and should be dealt with as such."

Also to say we had players we could not afford is also ridiculous. I guess then that any team such as Man City, Man Utd, Real Madrid and Barcelona can not also afford their players as they are hundreds of millions in debt. As for avoiding tax on players wages this has still to be proved and is a civil matter that when finalised we will either owe hee haw or get a bill that will be dealt with just like Motherwell, Portsmouth, Leeds etc etc.

[debear 603]

You are slightly missing the point.

The players pay less tax this way, so their takehome pay is higher.

If we paid them the normal way their takehome pay may have been say 15k per week, whereas this way it was say 25k per week.

If we hadn’t used this loophole, the players takehome would be less and they MIGHT have gone elsewhere.

Ie

Using ETB

We offer 30k per week, takehome is 25k

Team B offers 35k per week, takehome 20k

They come to us

Not using ETB

We offer 30k per week, takehome is 15k

Team B offers 35k per week, takehome 20k

They go elsewhere.

Figures are just a daft example, but you get where I’m coming form.

Using the loophole allowed us to offer better wages to players we might not have afforded otherwise, that is the claim.

[caseyjones 3,009]

Short thread.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Short thread.

Not really as I haven't started yet

So would this be classed as a double contract deal then.................you say to a player we will put the maximum in to a pension scheme for you and you will not pay tax on the contributions we make for you............and at age 35 you can take your pension benefits these will be paid to you net of basic rate tax and if you are still higher rate all you pay from income would be the difference, plus you will get a tax free lump sum.

So.............................is this double contract as the pension scheme contract will be with a 3rd party..............see all is not over

[debear 603]

Not really as I haven't started yet

So would this be classed as a double contract deal then.................you say to a player we will put the maximum in to a pension scheme for you and you will not pay tax on the contributions we make for you............and at age 35 you can take your pension benefits these will be paid to you net of basic rate tax and if you are still higher rate all you pay from income would be the difference, plus you will get a tax free lump sum.

So.............................is this double contract as the pension scheme contract will be with a 3rd party..............see all is not over

I don't know, I'm not privy to that information, and that is what the courts, taxman and SPL are trying to uncover.

I was merely commenting on the unfair advantage allegations.

[3Proddie1690 132]

Looking at those figures posted from last nights programme i don't think we had an unfair advantage..

If a player recieves 100k thru an EBT are you telling me that's cos we couldn't afford it thru the books? BULLSHIT!

There was only a few players that recieved any serious cash (serious cash in football wages anyway) Barry Ferguson and Klos to name 2 and even those moneys surely Rangers could have put thru the books..

Only person i seen get the real cash was SDM..

Be different if players had gotten 5-10m etc..

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

I don't know, I'm not privy to that information, and that is what the courts, taxman and SPL are trying to uncover.

I was merely commenting on the unfair advantage allegations.

And fine comments at that

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

You are slightly missing the point.

The players pay less tax this way, so their takehome pay is higher.

If we paid them the normal way their takehome pay may have been say 15k per week, whereas this way it was say 25k per week.

If we hadn’t used this loophole, the players takehome would be less and they MIGHT have gone elsewhere.

Ie

Using ETB

We offer 30k per week, takehome is 25k

Team B offers 35k per week, takehome 20k

They come to us

Not using ETB

We offer 30k per week, takehome is 15k

Team B offers 35k per week, takehome 20k

They go elsewhere.

Figures are just a daft example, but you get where I’m coming form.

Using the loophole allowed us to offer better wages to players we might not have afforded otherwise, that is the claim.

It wasn't as simple as that but I understand your point. It doesn't appear that many of the players went for it in a really big way but it depends on how much they were receiving on their football contract. As a percentage compared to their wages the payments/loans don't look too high.

It was put forward as an incentive scheme but with a lot of the players listed, too many should have been given an incentive not to sign. How can anyone claim we had a competitive advantage with the likes of Eggen, Ostenstad, Capucho, Bonnissel, Muscat, Capucho, Bernard, etc?

This EBT scheme looks more like an offshore pension-type scheme to be used as a tax avoidance loophole. Exploiting the system is not illegal. I can however see why it has taken an age to reach a conclusion because it certainly isn't clear to me.

[OlegKuznetsov 10,816]

There was no sporting advantage. Many of the players listed were, in actual fact, shite.

[debear 603]

It wasn't as simple as that but I understand your point. It doesn't appear that many of the players went for it in a really big way but it depends on how much they were receiving on their football contract. As a percentage compared to their wages the payments/loans don't look too high.

It was put forward as an incentive scheme but with a lot of the players listed, too many should have been given an incentive not to sign. How can anyone claim we had a competitive advantage with the likes of Eggen, Ostenstad, Capucho, Bonnissel, Muscat, Capucho, Bernard, etc?

This EBT scheme looks more like an offshore pension-type scheme to be used as a tax avoidance loophole. Exploiting the system is not illegal. I can however see why it has taken an age to reach a conclusion because it certainly isn't clear to me.

I understand that, but it is what is being alledged by the papists.

"They cheated, they shouldn't have been able to afford those players, take 9iaR off them, *howls at moon*)

[debear 603]

There was no sporting advantage. Many of the players listed were, in actual fact, shite.

Dan Eggen.

[Ricky_ 893]

having looked at the BBC's table of what players were paid via EBT & for how much i'm certain the EBT's aren't wages, more like 'extras' for bonuses.

didn't martin bain get paid a bonus from the EBT when the players reached the UEFA cup final?

the biggest earners aswell are guys like Flo & Prso. Flo probably recieved a sign-on fee via EBT & Prso most likely got his goal bonus via EBT. He scored alot of big goals, including a couple in the champions league, and 1 at aberdeen that won us he title if i remember corretly.

The tax bill we got hit with was for £34m (before you add interest etc...) and EBT's were meant to run for 8 years. Thats £4m per season. Oh and David Murray was by far the biggest beneficiary of the EBT's pocketing over £6m. It's also likely that we will be found guilty of some, and not-guilty on others.

We spent money we coudlnt afford to spent, that was evident, we had over £80m debt at one point and managed to widdle it down to 18m while still winning titles. We spent what we couldn't afford to spend, but then again, who doesn't? It wasn't because of EBT's though, the money paying the actual wages & the money used for buying players was all just borrowed the way i see it.

[WaltersGotStyle 160]

It is a diffcult argument in regards to "competitive advantage" as for UEFA competitions you could argue some clubs around Europe have a competitive advantage due to their national tax laws in relation to the UK.

In terms of a EBTs giving us a competitive advantage this would only really apply if another team in Scotland could actually afford the players base wage - but did not participate in EBTs - therefore any offer we gave would give us a competitve advantage over theirs.

[debear 603]

having looked at the BBC's table of what players were paid via EBT & for how much i'm certain the EBT's aren't wages, more like 'extras' for bonuses.

didn't martin bain get paid a bonus from the EBT when the players reached the UEFA cup final?

the biggest earners aswell are guys like Flo & Prso. Flo probably recieved a sign-on fee via EBT & Prso most likely got his goal bonus via EBT. He scored alot of big goals, including a couple in the champions league, and 1 at aberdeen that won us he title if i remember corretly.

The tax bill we got hit with was for £34m (before you add interest etc...) and EBT's were meant to run for 8 years. Thats £4m per season. Oh and David Murray was by far the biggest beneficiary of the EBT's pocketing over £6m. It's also likely that we will be found guilty of some, and not-guilty on others.

We spent money we coudlnt afford to spent, that was evident, we had over £80m debt at one point and managed to widdle it down to 18m while still winning titles. We spent what we couldn't afford to spend, but then again, who doesn't? It wasn't because of EBT's though, the money paying the actual wages & the money used for buying players was all just borrowed the way i see it.

How the fuck did Eggen get a bonus? He never kicked a ball!

Or Souness.

[Ricky_ 893]

It is a diffcult argument in regards to "competitive advantage" as for UEFA competitions you could argue some clubs around Europe have a competitive advantage due to their national tax laws in relation to the UK.

In terms of a EBTs giving us a competitive advantage this would only really apply if another team in Scotland could actually afford the players base wage - but did not participate in EBTs - therefore any offer we gave would give us a competitve advantage over theirs.

it wasn't a wage scheme though from what i understand. it was more like a bonus, employee benefit scheme, more akin to say, a employee share scheme or pension scheme. I think people need to realsie aswell that there still hasn't been a verdict yet, so we could well have done nothing wrong.

[Ricky_ 893]

How the fuck did Eggen get a bonus? He never kicked a ball!

Or Souness.

martin bain didnt kick many balls either.

i dont think anyone really knows who decided who got paid & how much other than probably minty himself.

[Southside Jim 4]

Going by the way the scum across the city are talking. About getting titles stripped from our history. Due to us buying players we couldn't afford.

Didn't they have a testimonal for larsson to give him his final pay-off ? So that way he got a big pay check and not alot of tax paid on it ?? Due to it beig a charity game ?!?!?!

All this talk of not being able to afford players, is like telling someone who only earns £25k a year..that they can't but a house at £400k becaus ethey don't have the money to but it just now. All transfers deals are paid by installments, just like a mortgage payment plan..so we could affoard the players if we met the payments..

They are clutching at straws, and I feel that the longer the big tax case goes on the better it is for us. As I'm sure that their would have been some sort of leaked info if we we're gonna be hammered by now.

[Thermopylae 15,287]

It is a diffcult argument in regards to "competitive advantage" as for UEFA competitions you could argue some clubs around Europe have a competitive advantage due to their national tax laws in relation to the UK.

In terms of a EBTs giving us a competitive advantage this would only really apply if another team in Scotland could actually afford the players base wage - but did not participate in EBTs - therefore any offer we gave would give us a competitve advantage over theirs.

Very good point septics European Cup win is null and void because of the different tax regimes in the different countries

[corkinator 611]

The nappy rippers better hope hmrc dont look at gate money against atendence figures any time soon.

I actually had one of them tell me " aye, we did that but everyone was doing it so it's ok. Hahaha deranged doesn't even cover it.

[Sobatai 70]

And, of course, having attendances two or three times the size of rivals doesn't provide a competitive advantage? It's just a load of old nonsense. Maybe the SFA and SPL should move to peg the Old Firm's attendances to that of their rivals? A competitive advantage, for fuck's sake. I mean, doesn't Manchester City having the multi-billionaire Sheikh Mansour funding the club provide it with a competitive advantage? Isn't that the reason they had a parade the other day after winning the EPL? Doesn't Manchester United's circa 76,000 average attendance give it a competitive advantage over QPR's circa 17,000?

[elephants stoned 2,994]

Dan Eggen.

Lol the day players like Eggen or Konterman give us a sporting advantage is the day minty and shyte parade around Ibrox

to adoring Bears.

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

This EBT scheme looks more like an offshore pension-type scheme to be used as a tax avoidance loophole. It isn't any different in many respects to an ordinary pension scheme. You get tax relief on money paid into your pension fund. The only difference is when you take money out.

To my mind, these payments were basically discretionary and I also believe they are actually "loans" which won't be paid back. As the scheme was run by Murray and not RFC then I can't see where RFC is the responsible party. RFC paid money into a Trust on behalf of the players and on the advice of tax experts (expert.... an over-used word almost always used to describe people who clearly aren't as described) it was deemed that no tax was due to be deducted on such payments. The Club's auditors found nothing amiss every year. It isn't as if these EBT monies were hidden in the accounts, in fact they were clearly visible.

[Glowingmonkeyhead 62]

This EBT scheme looks more like an offshore pension-type scheme to be used as a tax avoidance loophole. It isn't any different in many respects to an ordinary pension scheme. You get tax relief on money paid into your pension fund. The only difference is when you take money out.

To my mind, these payments were basically discretionary and I also believe they are actually "loans" which won't be paid back. As the scheme was run by Murray and not RFC then I can't see where RFC is the responsible party. RFC paid money into a Trust on behalf of the players and on the advice of tax experts (expert.... an over-used word almost always used to describe people who clearly aren't as described) it was deemed that no tax was due to be deducted on such payments. The Club's auditors found nothing amiss every year. It isn't as if these EBT monies were hidden in the accounts, in fact they were clearly visible.

Totaly agree. Under the BBC's interpetation on dual contracts anyone with a pension, image rights, company car, testimonial loan to move house etc have all broke SFA rules.

[Sobatai 70]

To my mind, these payments were basically discretionary ...

The case stands or falls on how "basically discretionary" the payments were. If HMRC is able to convince the FTT that the payments weren't discretionary at all then HMRC wins. It's like that rather grotesque porn chap said last night, nothing wrong with EBTs in principle at the time, it's the operation of the scheme that is the issue.

[lau03143 87]

If a player recieves 100k thru an EBT are you telling me that's cos we couldn't afford it thru the books? BULLSHIT!

Yous missing the point.

We'd be paying the same.

The player would get more money as they'd be paying less tax. Therefore at a competitive advantage over other clubs using traditional contracts.