Dual Contracts Rubbish

[Shuggy 1,308]

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

Could Murray and co be that dumb? It's all down to what constitutes a contract I guess. To complicated for me, I'll leave this to the legal eagles.

[BroonBear 696]

to be fair, they need more tax from us to help pay the benefits to the lazy mhanks that " hate Britain and the Queen" but are more than happy to live off us than go back to the country they sing about defending but have never been too.

god bless lizzie

[bigblueyonder 11,158]

It's a lot of bullshit, it's all down to an admin error.. we could have told them we were making these payments and then continued to do so with no issue...

that said the reason Murray was doing this was to fleece Rangers so the less people that knew the better I suppose...

[Tamb 126]

I think that we are all guessing what the problem is, what worries me is that SDM took advice from the wee porno guy in the first place. Surely he must have known that it was a bit suspicious.

[tooblue 105]

I still can't get over how we have used an, if not universally then certainly widespread form of minimising tax paid by British/European clubs during this time, under professional advice by qualified and regulated advisors, submitting records of said payments year-on-year to our governing body and are somehow the embodiment of all evil because of it.

[superally355 44]

Could Murray and co be that dumb? It's all down to what constitutes a contract I guess. To complicated for me, I'll leave this to the legal eagles.

bottom line is if it wasnt in the contract, the players wouldnt have signed. so it must have been

[glesgabear81 24]

I could be way off but this is my take.....

Player x will go to club y if he gets 40k in his pocket after tax.

Club y say that would cost them 60k per week when you add on tax, can't do it that way.

How about we give player x a contract where he takes home 10k per week after tax and we declare it to the governing body.

Club y then puts 30k per week into an EBT for player x and don't declare it. Player x doesn't care, he takes home 40k per week and he has a letter from the club confirming their intention to pay him this way for a specified period of time and they say its all legit.

Club y is happy because they only pay tax on 10k of the weekly salary instead of paying tax on 40k.

Eventually the clubs governing body hear about this undeclared 30k per week payment and say you broke the rules, you didn't tell us about this 30k per week payment to player x.

Club y accounts show non playing staff received payments through EBT but governing body doesn't give a shit about non playing staff.

HMRC give a shit about everyone that was paid through ebt's.

Club y's chairmen is a coward, he sells club y to a fraudster and goes into hiding leaving club y in a world of shit.

[dummiesoot 16,056]

bottom line is if it wasnt in the contract, the players wouldnt have signed. so it must have been

Now that is timmy speak - there is no evidence apart from the word of a doddery old cunt with an axe to grind that cant remember his own name. There is also no evidence the players would not sign any deal on offer.

[superally355 44]

Now that is timmy speak - there is no evidence apart from the word of a doddery old cunt with an axe to grind that cant remember his own name. There is also no evidence the players would not sign any deal on offer.

im pretty sure their is evidence or the spl's investigation would be dead in the water. but you kid yourself if you want

[tooblue 105]

bottom line is if it wasnt in the contract, the players wouldnt have signed. so it must have been

Haha, wow - you should have tried to hang around for a bit, maybe try and take the piss for a while. See ya

[superally355 44]

Haha, wow - you should have tried to hang around for a bit, maybe try and take the piss for a while. See ya

so you also think its all just a conspiracy set up to get us? and that we didnt break any rules? get a grip son

[tooblue 105]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said, doll x

[superally355 44]

Yeah, that's exactly what I said, doll x

take your head out your ass then hen and open yours eyes

[dummiesoot 16,056]

im pretty sure their is evidence or the spl's investigation would be dead in the water. but you kid yourself if you want

Fuck off with your pint and thumbs up. You are a fucking troll.

The evidence is anecdotal currently. Fuck off onto kerryfail street if you want to take timmy's side.

[Spectre 1,663]

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?

The argument is that in using EBT's and not paying tax we were able to sign players that otherwise wouldn't have signed for us. There are 2 obvious counters to this. One being that half the clubs we were competing with for signatures were using EBT's in this way also and secondly the way our club was being run we'd probably have paid the players higher wages if EBT's weren't used, Murray had a massive overdraft and clearly didn't give a fuck about running up a debt so we'd have paid higher wages to get the players we were after.

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

Well that's what the entire tax case has been about in essence, the accusation is that such payments were not discretionary at all and were in fact paid under the terms of a second contract.

[superally355 44]

Fuck off with your pint and thumbs up. You are a fucking troll.

The evidence is anecdotal currently. Fuck off onto kerryfail street if you want to take timmy's side.

so because im not an paranoid idiot you think im a celtic fan? haha not everyone of us believe we were in the right ya fuckin dick. im sick of all the BS about us being vicTIMised :wanker:

[dummiesoot 16,056]

so because im not an paranoid idiot you think im a celtic fan? haha not everyone of us believe we were in the right ya fuckin dick. im sick of all the BS about us being vicTIMised :wanker:

Seriously fuck off to kfs.

[lau03143 87]

I think it's the facts that it's potentially two contracts. One and registered and one not. It's not the amount paid, it's what's been registered with the SFA.

[superally355 44]

Seriously fuck off to kfs.

explain why we didnt do anything wrong then son?

[dummiesoot 16,056]

explain why we didnt do anything wrong then son?

Listen you sanctimonious prick i have no fucking evidence either fucking way i'd rather take the rangers side than slit eyed side so go and fuck your sister you fucking prick. Wanker sign all you want doesn't stop me thinkng you are a tim fuck.

[superally355 44]

Seriously fuck off to kfs.

its cunts like you that make us look like arrogant plebs that dont know the rules. no doubt you were one of the cunts spoutin in whyte we trust?

[superally355 44]

Listen you sanctimonious prick i have no fucking evidence either fucking way i'd rather take the rangers side than slit eyed side so go and fuck your sister you fucking prick. Wanker sign all you want doesn't stop me thinkng you are a tim fuck.

are you really that thick? if their was no evidence we would welcome the investigation you fuckwit

[graeme355 28]

explain why we didnt do anything wrong then son?

So you think that its ok to be found guilty before the trial? that accusations mean truth. and that insinuations are fact?

[mark_ni 12]

I can understand if there were payments to players outside of a contract that this may be a breach of spl rules. What I can't understand is how that would equate to cheating and result in us losing 5 titles. The punishment does not fit the crime. Of course we all know liewell is the one pushing for it but at the end of the day those titles were won on the pitch. Seems like it's no more than an admin error and not one that gave us any advantage whatsoever on the pitch, if it had I am sure we would have won more titles during the time we used ebts

[dummiesoot 16,056]

I can understand if there were payments to players outside of a contract that this may be a breach of spl rules. What I can't understand is how that would equate to cheating and result in us losing 5 titles. The punishment does not fit the crime. Of course we all know liewell is the one pushing for it but at the end of the day those titles were won on the pitch. Seems like it's no more than an admin error and not one that gave us any advantage whatsoever on the pitch, if it had I am sure we would have won more titles during the time we used ebts

Good points mark. Some of the players signed during ebts did not give us much of an advantage. Facts are our accounts showed the ebt scheme which the sfa saw every year, this is an agenda driven by one club. Other clubs used dubious means to sign players, bellamy, the keanes etc. Of course sellik did not even show the ebt for junihno to the sfa surely this is the dodgiest of dodgy. There is no balance to any investigation being undertaken.