Dual Contracts Rubbish

[BroonBear 696]

i don't understand what they are going on about regarding "dual contracts".

lets use big Jig as an example.

Rangers pay Jig £10k a week and tell the SPHell this. now after tax/ insurance he would get £6k but if it went through an ebt, he gets £8.5k a week. so he is getting £10k a month through an ebt rather than the normal tax/ insurance.

At the end of the day, Rangers are still paying him £10k a week so how can he have dual contracts?? how and where he gets it paid is nothing to do with Rangers. add to that, using EBT's is legal.

it may just be me being stupid but can anyone explain?

[JCDBigBear 10,832]

i don't understand what they are going on about regarding "dual contracts".

lets use big Jig as an example.

Rangers pay Jig £10k a week and tell the SPHell this. now after tax/ insurance he would get £6k but if it went through an ebt, he gets £8.5k a week. so he is getting £10k a month through an ebt rather than the normal tax/ insurance.

At the end of the day, Rangers are still paying him £10k a week so how can he have dual contracts?? how and where he gets it paid is nothing to do with Rangers. add to that, using EBT's is legal.

it may just be me being stupid but can anyone explain?

That's not how it works.

As far as I understand (taking your example of £10k) Jig gets told we can pay you £10k.

Either:

take it fully taxable on £10k.

or

we pay you £8k in your contract which is taxable and we pay £2k into the EBT trust fund. You can "borrow" the money from the trust fund at a later date. That isn't taxable because a) it's not actually wages b) you are "borrowing" the money. Also, it isn't contractual because there is no absolute guarantee it will be given to you or when it will be given.

[Bothwellbear 1,392]

Its still not allowed

[BroonBear 696]

but in both cases, Rangers are still paying him £10k which will be what is stated in the contract details given to the clowns at hampden.

[superally355 44]

but everyone knows they were wages and not loans, which is why we are getting royally fucked over it. david murray = :wanker: :wanker:

[Smile 26,622]

Its still not allowed

But it was at the time surely ?

[Maxiglw 9]

Has anyone actually seen / read the "rule" we have apparently broken ?

I was led to believe it was only there to protect the players and only forcible if a PLAYER complained about his treatment ?

IF it is that we gave players more than was in the contract then how does it go with Houses, Cars, Flights etc etc that seem to go to most players ?

Also where it states that Titles can be historically altered ?

[TMB 14,167]

At the end of the day, EBT's benefit the players more than the club. The club pays more or less the same amount while the players earns more by paying less tax.

[TMB 14,167]

At the end of the day, EBT's benefit the players more than the club. The club pays more or less the same amount while the players earns more by paying less tax.

[Smile 26,622]

Has anyone actually seen / read the "rule" we have apparently broken ?

I was led to believe it was only there to protect the players and only forcible if a PLAYER complained about his treatment ?

IF it is that we gave players more than was in the contract then how does it go with Houses, Cars, Flights etc etc that seem to go to most players ?

Also where it states that Titles can be historically altered ?

Its called change everything to make the bitter ones happy rules.

[TMB 14,167]

xD

[jonbryce 63]

i don't understand what they are going on about regarding "dual contracts".

lets use big Jig as an example.

Rangers pay Jig £10k a week and tell the SPHell this. now after tax/ insurance he would get £6k but if it went through an ebt, he gets £8.5k a week. so he is getting £10k a month through an ebt rather than the normal tax/ insurance.

At the end of the day, Rangers are still paying him £10k a week so how can he have dual contracts?? how and where he gets it paid is nothing to do with Rangers. add to that, using EBT's is legal.

it may just be me being stupid but can anyone explain?

It is alleged, nothing proven yet, that they reported to the SFA that they were paying for example £500 per week, which went through the payroll. In addition they paid £9,500 per week via the EBT which it is alleged they didn't tell the SFA about.

[StornowayBlue 630]

but in both cases, Rangers are still paying him £10k which will be what is stated in the contract details given to the clowns at hampden.

This depends on whether the SPL/SFA whichever, were told he was getting paid 8K a week or 10K a week. Surely the books wouldn't have balanced if it were the former. Our accounts were always signed off. The ebt money was accounted for?

This waiting is driving me mental

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

EBTs can be complex and expensive to set up and administer. Employees are only potential beneficiaries – they have to rely on offshore trustees exercising a discretion in their favour. There is also no certainty of benefit. HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has been consistently “opposed” to EBTs since their introduction in the late 1980s and anyone using an EBT is likely to come under HMRC scrutiny.

David Murray knew this but still went ahead with it.

[superally355 44]

Has anyone actually seen / read the "rule" we have apparently broken ?

I was led to believe it was only there to protect the players and only forcible if a PLAYER complained about his treatment ?

IF it is that we gave players more than was in the contract then how does it go with Houses, Cars, Flights etc etc that seem to go to most players ?

Also where it states that Titles can be historically altered ?

my understanding ( i could be wrong ) is that you need to declare players contracts to the spl. we did but we left out the ebt side of the contracts ( because they'r not actually wages, honest wink wink ). that is the rule we broke

[StornowayBlue 630]

It is alleged, nothing proven yet, that they reported to the SFA that they were paying for example £500 per week, which went through the payroll. In addition they paid £9,500 per week via the EBT which it is alleged they didn't tell the SFA about.

Bloody Hell!? are you sure your sums are right?

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

http://www.contractoruk.com/ebt/

[Shuggy 1,308]

So that's the whole point? It can't be "dual contracts" because EBTs are not contracts.

[superally355 44]

So that's the whole point? It can't be "dual contracts" because EBTs are not contracts.

the whole point is ebt's are not ment to be used as contracts but thats exactly what we used them for

[BroonBear 696]

http://www.contractoruk.com/ebt/

cheers for this.

this says that they are similar to pensions but without them having control over them. So...... me and my work pay in to my pension, do i have "dual contracts"?? on top of my wage, they pay £x into my pension which means i get more from my company than they tell the hmrc.

[jonbryce 63]

cheers for this.

this says that they are similar to pensions but without them having control over them. So...... me and my work pay in to my pension, do i have "dual contracts"?? on top of my wage, they pay £x into my pension which means i get more from my company than they tell the hmrc.

Your pay and pension contributions are usually detailed in the same contract. If you had a separate side letter detailing the pension contributions, you would have a dual contract. Pension contributions do get reported to HMRC, and you pay tax when you take the money out of the pension.

[Shuggy 1,308]

the whole point is ebt's are not ment to be used as contracts but thats exactly what we used them for

But the payments are technically discretionary from the offshore trust so how is that a contract?

[graeme355 28]

It was explained to me by a company director last weekend. (Not rangers i hasten to add but his company did use EBT's the same way rangers did, and quickly stopped them when the taxman warned them they didn't like them and were going to close them down and apply retrospective penalties.)

Anyway the crux i believe is that, yes we set up ebt and that's fine. however if we then sent a letter, or e mail, or even a verbal agreement, with a player that if the scored, did well, won a game, etc, he could borrow more from the ebt then this could be interpreted as a contractual agreement and as this is not in his contract breaks the SPL rules

However this is what he thought could be challenged legally, and why the SPL want us to give up our right to appeal as its a grey area.

not sure how accurate this is but thought i would share

[True Azure 1,414]

Your pay and pension contributions are usually detailed in the same contract. If you had a separate side letter detailing the pension contributions, you would have a dual contract. Pension contributions do get reported to HMRC, and you pay tax when you take the money out of the pension.

I took early retirement and it is taxed.

[superally355 44]

But the payments are technically discretionary from the offshore trust so how is that a contract?

i think its in writing and signed by both parties making it a contract