Dual Contracts Rubbish

[dummiesoot 16,056]

the thing is im not a tim and im pretty sure iv pumped more money into rangers than you. im just not a fucking idiot that thinks its ok to make jokes about ass raping priests and fuckin your sister. get a grip

o that is ok then you have spent more money on rangers than me. Good night.

Ps gie yer sister a wee cuddle

[T_Cradle85 3]

Player X plays for Club X

Rangers want to sign him, along with Club Y

Club Y offers him £30,000 a week - of which he will receive £22,000 after tax.

Rangers offers him £30,000 a week - of which he will receive, £25,000 after tax.

That in a nut shell is how we would have offered a contract to a player. In a bit more detail they will be told that say £10,000 is to be paid through the normal PAYE method, of which they will be taxed £3,000 on, but at a given period of time they will receive the further £23,000 through a seperate fund. At the end of the day, the player walks away with the same yearly wage, but with paying less tax.

Player benefits.

Where rangers benefit is from paying less PAYE, and cutting out the middle man (tax man) in essence not paying say £3,000 a week to a certain player, and pocketing what should have tradtionally been taxed (that's the £3,000short fall between the two clubs contracts as noted above).

EBT benefits the players, but a club wouldn't use them if it didn't benefit them as well. Which it will have, because they would pocket the excess that wasn't to be taxed.

[superally355 44]

o that is ok then you have spent more money on rangers than me. Good night.

Ps gie yer sister a wee cuddle

been payin 4 season tickets for the past 15 year so aye im pretty sure. still waiting on them giving me some of my money back this season though. night ya fuckin

[T_Cradle85 3]

been payin 4 season tickets for the past 15 year so aye im pretty sure. still waiting on them giving me some of my money back this season though. night ya fuckin

You joined today, be one of us or not, you're on to a hiding on this forum mate. The paranoia of some of the members here seems to be above that of your common timmy.

[superally355 44]

You joined today, be one of us or not, you're on to a hiding on this forum mate. The paranoia of some of the members here seems to be above that of your common timmy.

fair enough. doesnt mean i need to agree with the BS spouted on here tho

[T_Cradle85 3]

fair enough. doesnt mean i need to agree with the BS spouted on here tho

Preaching to the choir their dude.

Seemingly disagree with one, or hold a slightly different opinion to someone, and you get sniffed at.

Good luck to you on the forums, a good bear is always welcome in my eyes.

[Blue Tiger 5]

I have no doubt that there is an agenda being pushed by our enemies because there can be no justification for the vigour in the SPL's actions on this issue.

This is not a case of dual contracts or cheating. This is the slant being put on it by those who hate us.

Put simply, the SPL allege that we have breached the rule that says we can only make payments to players for playing football that are included in the contract for service that is registered with them. As someone said the other day, this appears to be a rule in place to protect the interests of players who could end up in dispute with their club.

No player has alleged that any amount that they would have expected to receive has not been received so it is safe to assume that Rangers paid all amounts owing on time and therefore this proves that the players could be afforded - therefore no cheating.

It is a generally accepted legal principle that you can arrange your affairs to minimise the amount of tax paid, so there is no morally reprehensible action being undertaken through the use of EBTs, so again there is no cheating.

For EBTs to work to minimise tax, they cannot be used to pay wages, but discretionary bonuses will work just fine.

Player contracts need to be in a standard form approved by the SPL. I have not seen one of these contracts, however FIFA has published the minimum standards associated with player contracts, and these minimum standards allow for the contract to govern the payment of bonuses.

On the assumption that the SPL standard player contract allows for the payment of bonuses, any player bonus paid through an EBT would be a payment made under a contract lodged with the SPL. This would mean no breach of the rule.

Now lets assume that there are side letters that say you will be paid a guaranteed bonus. This would still be a bonus, and subject to the assumption that the player contract allows for he payment of bonuses, this would not breach the rules, but would make the EBT an inefficient vehicle for minimising tax. No breach of rule would be committed.

It would only be a breach of the rule if there was a side letter that said we will pay you all or part of your wage through an EBT. This would be a breach of the rule, but still not cheating because the full amount of the wage would be paid. The only way there could be any suggestion of cheating would be if there was a guarantee to the player that they would receive a wage in hand outside of the contract after tax and the only way this could be achieved was through the use of an EBT. Then there is a suggestion of the club paying less than they otherwise would if the wage was paid in the normal way. This is not cheating if the club would still have been able to afford the player, and our financial position at the time of the commitment is relevant, not the position in 2012 after we had been financially raped by a crook.

Having looked through the list of alleged payments made through EBTs on the BBC site, the amounts alleged to have been paid through the EBTs looks like fractions of the money the players would have been on. This suggests that the worst case scenario painted is highly unlikely. If you were seeking to cheat, the majority of the payments received by the player would be made through an EBT and the amount paid through the normal route would be minimised.

There are assumptions made in this assessment, but ultimately, I cannot see how any advantage was gained, and therefore any breach of the rule that is proven should be seen as an administrative issue for the purposes of the SPL. The taxation implications are not in the remit of the SPL, and therefore must be irrelevant to its consideration - unless it is being driven by our enemies.

Anyone who thinks we should allow the SPL to get on with its investigation and punishment is either naive or has the agenda of our enemies at heart.

[Bear78 96]

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.

[Bear78 96]

A case to answer does not mean guilt, well not now in modern Britain. it might have in a catholic medieval state but thanks to enlightened me we don't live it one.

but if you are happy to accept that insinuations are fact then fool you, as any person who has a modicum of justice will be aware innuendo is not fact and finding guilt before a hearing is more akin to dictatorship than a true democracy.

Well said

[Bear78 96]

im sick of you and the whole we are the vicTIMs boohoohoo, we've been punished enough please dont cunts that make us look like dicks. so fuck off and actully read up on whats been going on

reeking ffs

[Bear78 96]

Innocent until proven guilty Mr Rangers Fan. my point exactly. so let them prove us guilty. instead of trying to squirm out of it

same as above, reeking, thinking we should expect anything like a fair hearing is beyond a joke, as is saying the club has not been victimised. Your do reek so bad

[graeme355 28]

iv yet to here your argument to defend us apart from the conspiracy theory

I don't have to defend us that is the job of lawyers and the club when and if we ever get a fair hearing. Something you appear unable to grasp.

[gogzy 31,195]

again, their you go makin us look like dicks

You need no help from others to look like a dick.

Ya dick.

[superally355 44]

I have no doubt that there is an agenda being pushed by our enemies because there can be no justification for the vigour in the SPL's actions on this issue.

This is not a case of dual contracts or cheating. This is the slant being put on it by those who hate us.

Put simply, the SPL allege that we have breached the rule that says we can only make payments to players for playing football that are included in the contract for service that is registered with them. As someone said the other day, this appears to be a rule in place to protect the interests of players who could end up in dispute with their club.

No player has alleged that any amount that they would have expected to receive has not been received so it is safe to assume that Rangers paid all amounts owing on time and therefore this proves that the players could be afforded - therefore no cheating.

It is a generally accepted legal principle that you can arrange your affairs to minimise the amount of tax paid, so there is no morally reprehensible action being undertaken through the use of EBTs, so again there is no cheating.

For EBTs to work to minimise tax, they cannot be used to pay wages, but discretionary bonuses will work just fine.

Player contracts need to be in a standard form approved by the SPL. I have not seen one of these contracts, however FIFA has published the minimum standards associated with player contracts, and these minimum standards allow for the contract to govern the payment of bonuses.

On the assumption that the SPL standard player contract allows for the payment of bonuses, any player bonus paid through an EBT would be a payment made under a contract lodged with the SPL. This would mean no breach of the rule.

Now lets assume that there are side letters that say you will be paid a guaranteed bonus. This would still be a bonus, and subject to the assumption that the player contract allows for he payment of bonuses, this would not breach the rules, but would make the EBT an inefficient vehicle for minimising tax. No breach of rule would be committed.

It would only be a breach of the rule if there was a side letter that said we will pay you all or part of your wage through an EBT. This would be a breach of the rule, but still not cheating because the full amount of the wage would be paid. The only way there could be any suggestion of cheating would be if there was a guarantee to the player that they would receive a wage in hand outside of the contract after tax and the only way this could be achieved was through the use of an EBT. Then there is a suggestion of the club paying less than they otherwise would if the wage was paid in the normal way. This is not cheating if the club would still have been able to afford the player, and our financial position at the time of the commitment is relevant, not the position in 2012 after we had been financially raped by a crook.

Having looked through the list of alleged payments made through EBTs on the BBC site, the amounts alleged to have been paid through the EBTs looks like fractions of the money the players would have been on. This suggests that the worst case scenario painted is highly unlikely. If you were seeking to cheat, the majority of the payments received by the player would be made through an EBT and the amount paid through the normal route would be minimised.

There are assumptions made in this assessment, but ultimately, I cannot see how any advantage was gained, and therefore any breach of the rule that is proven should be seen as an administrative issue for the purposes of the SPL. The taxation implications are not in the remit of the SPL, and therefore must be irrelevant to its consideration - unless it is being driven by our enemies.

Anyone who thinks we should allow the SPL to get on with its investigation and punishment is either naive or has the agenda of our enemies at heart.

i think the whole point is that it was infact a promise of tax free wages. if you cannot see how this is an advantage (no matter how slight) then its you thats naive. since when is an administrative error ever just been overlooked?