EBT - title stripping

[DC Blue 12]

Didn't Celtic admit to having an EBT in place for juninho and only paid the tax when it came to light.

If that is the case are they not in breach of SFA rules and should have titles stripped as well (if it comes to that with us)

There is also the issue of all the 'legitimate business investments' made by septic on behalf of their players. Maybe not illegal in the eyes of the law, but going by their complaint of 'financial doping' it's the same thing as the EBT's and they should suffer same punishment that is handed down to us!

[bluepieter 7]

If these "legitimate business investments" fall into the category of payments of any type made to players outside of the terms of their contracts, I suspect they should be treated the same under the rules.

What's your source and could you move thread to existing thread "Interesting rules in SPL articles" as this covers a similar area.

[3Proddie1690 132]

If these "legitimate business investments" fall into the category of payments of any type made to players outside of the terms of their contracts, I suspect they should be treated the same under the rules.

What's your source and could you move thread to existing thread "Interesting rules in SPL articles" as this covers a similar area.

I think the problem might be that, although the peado's used EBT's, they never won anything on the field so there's prolly nothing to strip, by their logic, its only a sporting advantage if you actually win something.. The peado's haven't actually won anything of any significance on the park in years, remember their last 2 titles are tainted! And if they do manage to have us stripped of titles and then have them handed down to them, that's even more tainted titles..It could well be that after the dust settles the peado's will have acquired more tainted titles in last 20 years than they actually played for and won..

Lets face it, we shouldn't be surprised by anything this rancid little diddy club try to do, if they can cover up years of paedophilia, then they can do anything..

[harry handsome 629]

All payments made to players ( does this include minimizing taxes and rort investments) should be taken into account.

If a player stands to earn extra income out with that in their contract by club sponsored means then they could fall into this category.

I reckon any forensic accountant would have a field day with every sportsman not just Rangers players.

I know of one accountant who reckons this could change the face of football in Scotland as far as remuneration is involved, the issue he sees is how transparent the SFA is in dealing with the information they have in hand. (whisper this, he's one of them)

[Agoram1 42]

I was thinking the same last night. Just because they only used the ebt for one player, does that make them any less guilty?? We are being told it makes no difference to the 'dual contract' investigation if we are cleared of the big tax case and have no liability.

So using that logic, Ceptic have admitted using an ebt, paying a player outwith his contract and although they settled with hmrc, they should still be investigated for it! Wouldn't hold me breath tho!

[3Proddie1690 132]

I was thinking the same last night. Just because they only used the ebt for one player, does that make them any less guilty?? We are being told it makes no difference to the 'dual contract' investigation if we are cleared of the big tax case and have no liability.

So using that logic, Ceptic have admitted using an ebt, paying a player outwith his contract and although they settled with hmrc, they should still be investigated for it! Wouldn't hold me breath tho!

If i steal 100 cars, and you steal 1 car, does that make you not guilty? .... Your logic and thinking is sound

[Giff 0]

I was thinking the same last night. Just because they only used the ebt for one player, does that make them any less guilty?? We are being told it makes no difference to the 'dual contract' investigation if we are cleared of the big tax case and have no liability.

So using that logic, Ceptic have admitted using an ebt, paying a player outwith his contract and although they settled with hmrc, they should still be investigated for it! Wouldn't hold me breath tho!

I had high hopes for this one but, tbf, the EBT was already in place when he joined them from Boro and he/his agent wanted the arrangement to continue which celtic agreed to. This, however, only lasted a few weeks and Celtic changed the deal on the advice of their accountants and fizzed up to HMRC and settled. i dont know why HMRC are not knocking at Boro's door though.

Salmond's club Hearts have used EBT's and they seem to be getting away with it.

[bluepieter 7]

It doesn't matter how the payment was made, or whether it is an EBT. SPL rule 9.3 prohibits any payment of any type that is not disclosed in the contract. That includes brown envelopes of cash, legitimate investments etc.

[Carsons Dog 9,878]

It doesn't matter how the payment was made, or whether it is an EBT. SPL rule 9.3 prohibits any payment of any type that is not disclosed in the contract. That includes brown envelopes of cash, legitimate investments etc.

BHEAST ALERT BHEAST ALERT BHEAST ALERT

[bill moles 0]

It doesn't matter how the payment was made, or whether it is an EBT. SPL rule 9.3 prohibits any payment of any type that is not disclosed in the contract. That includes brown envelopes of cash, legitimate investments etc.

That is correct , its nothing to do with EBT's so if any club has played a player and not disclosed payment then I think the rules say they lost that game 3-0 for fielding an ineligible player-

it obviously depends on how many times you have done it whether it affects any titles won.

[bill moles 0]

If i steal 100 cars, and you steal 1 car, does that make you not guilty? .... Your logic and thinking is sound

Don't think so unfortunately - you are deemed to have lost every game you fielded a player who is ineligible through undisclosed payments 3-0 so whether its one or 100 does matter.

[Leeds_Bear 8,299]

Don't think so unfortunately - you are deemed to have lost every game you fielded a player who is ineligible through undisclosed payments 3-0 so whether its one or 100 does matter.

That's alright then, because as far as I am aware these payments were disclosed.

[iain1712 336]

Going off on a little bit of a tangent here as I didn't want to make another ebt thread.

So the sfa have investigated and decided we have a case to answer regarding dual contracts and/or undisclosed payments.

Do we now get our day in "court" as it were, to defend the club against these allegations or are they just going to decide on a punishment and dish it out ?

If the latter I fully expect a posse of the best lawyers our country can produce arriving at hampdump to clear our name (funded by sir minty of course), after all how many times has he denied that dual contracts existed.

We now know that you don't give a fuck about rangers sir minty Murray, but the least you can do is clear your own name and in doing so help out the rangers in our hour of need

[bill moles 0]

That's alright then, because as far as I am aware these payments were disclosed.

The SPL appear to disagree unfortunately.

[bill moles 0]

Going off on a little bit of a tangent here as I didn't want to make another ebt thread.

So the sfa have investigated and decided we have a case to answer regarding dual contracts and/or undisclosed payments.

Do we now get our day in "court" as it were, to defend the club against these allegations or are they just going to decide on a punishment and dish it out ?

If the latter I fully expect a posse of the best lawyers our country can produce arriving at hampdump to clear our name (funded by sir minty of course), after all how many times has he denied that dual contracts existed.

We now know that you don't give a fuck about rangers sir minty Murray, but the least you can do is clear your own name and in doing so help out the rangers in our hour of need

Think the findings go to an independent commission.

[iain1712 336]

Think the findings go to an independent commission.

are we allowed representation at this commission?

The point I'm getting at is this problem is 100% sir minty's doing, and therefore he should be funding our defence against this allegation.

[bluepieter 7]

BHEAST ALERT BHEAST ALERT BHEAST ALERT

I was referring to an earlier post concerning the use of "legitimate investments" and trying to point out that other clubs might make payments to players through other means.

[dan_ger 1,454]

It doesn't matter how the payment was made, or whether it is an EBT. SPL rule 9.3 prohibits any payment of any type that is not disclosed in the contract. That includes brown envelopes of cash, legitimate investments etc.

Rule D9.3 - No Player may receive any payment of any description from or on behalf of a Club in respect of that Player's participation in Association Football or in an activity connected with Association Football, other than in reimbursement of expenses actually incurred or to be actually incurred in playing or training for that Club, unless such payment is made in accordance with a Contract of Service between that Club and the Player concerned.

Only concerns money for playing football. Other money loaned of paid for other work doesn't count. At the very least a case can be built on it.

[Chef 436]

Need a wash now iv came in here.

[Giff 0]

Only concerns money for playing football. Other money loaned of paid for other work doesn't count. At the very least a case can be built on it.

We would be able to do that if billy Dodds hadnt told the world he recieved his wages, tax already deducted, through the fund.

[dan_ger 1,454]

We would be able to do that if billy Dodds hadnt told the world he recieved his wages, tax already deducted, through the fund.

Can he prove it? Has he proved it?

[papaguy51 941]

It's a hard one IMO.

This won't be popular but if it's found that we were had dual contracts - fraud, essentially - then we deserve those titles getting stripped.

We'd say the exact same if it was another club in this position.

[Giff 0]

Can he prove it? Has he proved it?

Thats a fair point because initially he denied that he had recieved money from the EBT. I would imagine he got a p45 or something.

[North Rd 2,860]

It's a hard one IMO.

This won't be popular but if it's found that we were had dual contracts - fraud, essentially - then we deserve those titles getting stripped.

We'd say the exact same if it was another club in this position.

Disagree, why should the team that won those titles suffer for someone defrauding the taxman? What has that to do with 11 men against 11 men?

Now, if the referee or linesman were bought like has been done in Italy, SA, then there is a case to answer, but not this.

[DC Blue 12]

So does what is said and written about in the following link count as payments to players by Celtic?

http://williampoole.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/celtic-employees-tax-avoidance/

We listed the EBT's in our annual financial statements to all shareholders, so why is it only become an issue to SPL/SFA now?