ray 105 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Mod edit: to include Murray's full statement in the OP:-----------------------------------------------I have decided to issue this statement because of the concerns which I have at the continuing attempts to inflict further punishment on Rangers Football Club.While the "Newco" Rangers was rejected for membership of the SPL on the publicly stated grounds of sporting integrity, I would question whether this was the underlying motive for many who took this decision.I am not totally convinced by the explanation that they were reacting to the opinions of the supporters of their individual clubs.This, in my opinion, is a suitable answer to cover many other agendas.I applaud the decision of the SFL to accept Rangers for membership and respect the decision of the member clubs of the SFL to admit Rangers to its Third Division.The problems at Rangers have brought no credit to Scottish football and are a tragedy for the Club and for all those connected with it and who support it. They cannot be condoned and it is appropriate that there should be a proportionate penalty for the Club for the events over the last year.However, I urge all those connected with Scottish football to bring this sad affair to a close - now. Bayoneting the wounded is neither justified nor proportionate.Nevertheless, I cannot be anything other than angered at the suggestion that Rangers should be stripped of titles or other competition victories.This suggestion is an insult to the staff and players who achieved these successes thanks to skill, hard work and commitment and for no other reason.It is also an insult to the thousands of Rangers supporters who spent their hard-earned money to support the Club they love.I hope that those presently in charge of Rangers show sufficient resolve when it comes to resisting this move, despite the incentives being offered to do otherwise.I believe that there is a misconception which may lie behind this suggested penalty and accordingly it is my duty to clarify certain matters.During my stewardship of Rangers no rules were breached or circumvented and I reject and resent any suggestion that anything was done which amounted to cheating.As was required of a PLC, all accounts were fully audited and made available to all entitled parties. All football rules were complied with. All enquiries from entitled parties or organisations were answered.To those who criticise certain actions undertaken on behalf of the Club, I suggest that they familiarise themselves with all relevant rules before they come to any conclusions or express any opinions.This is particularly relevant to the SPL rules where it would appear that there are efforts to retrospectively rewrite laws to incorporate items not previously covered.The SPL rules variously required disclosure of all contract of service matters and all payments from a club to a player.It would now appear that these are to be rewritten to incorporate non-contractual loans from independent third parties and other non-contractual matters.If this is the case then press comment over the past few years would appear to indicate that several clubs other than Rangers may well have fallen foul of the soon to be changed historic laws.It would also appear that the SPL is once again seeking to invest itself with a power of retrospective penalty beyond that prescribed in its own rules.Much has been said and written about EBTs.It should be noted that the tax treatment of these is an issue as yet unresolved and it is wrong to prejudge the outcome.It must be stressed that the tax tribunal will determine the appropriate tax treatment in respect of the arrangements operated.This is not a criminal matter and there is presently no question as to the legality of these schemes.Rangers agreed contracts of employment with its players (and staff). The EBT scheme involved the contribution of funds into an offshore discretionary trust managed by independent trustees.The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates.There was no contractual or beneficial entitlement to the funds on the part of any individual and the monies paid to EBTs were not "remuneration" in terms of any rules applying to the Club.Since 2001 when the EBT scheme was introduced, the amounts contributed were disclosed in the audited financial statements of the Club. These audited accounts were provided to the SFA and SPL as required.As the law stands, it is the right of every taxpayer to minimise his tax liability.For example, taxpayers are entitled to maximise contributions to pension funds and benefit from the resultant tax allowances. Tax AVOIDANCE is a right. It is tax EVASION which is a crime.In December 2010, as a result of legislation changes introduced by HMRC, EBTs were rendered tax inefficient. Thereafter the Club made no further contributions to EBTs.For the avoidance of doubt, many thousands of employees in many areas of business and commerce have benefited from EBTs.Rangers sought only to provide financial security for players (and staff) within the rules of law and football. To suggest that this amounted to cheating in the sporting context is an allegation which is without any foundation.I, of course, wish the "new" Rangers every success for the future. I have no doubt that the present generation of players and staff will make a positive and beneficial contribution to the SPL and, in due course, return the Club to a position of pre-eminence in Scottish football.However, I am determined to support those who served the Club with such dignity and integrity during my stewardship.------------------------------------------------------------Original OP: Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,622 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Interesting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueblueal 2,117 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 I will guess a change of law firm for the SPL. Is a complete guess tho. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Carpintero 546 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Relevance? Meaning? Point? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwhiteandblue 3,330 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 whos the guy thats saying this? Never heard of him. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,622 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 whos the guy thats saying this? Never heard of him.Ronnie esplin wrote a book on Rangers "its rangers for me"included the spunkbucket Spiers in it which didn't go down well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny_01 2,007 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 david murray!! hes gony realease statement i believe Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peasie 103 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 David Murray is making a statement on EBTs today. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theweebluenose 4,335 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 david murray!! hes gony realease statement i believe"It wiznae ma fault honest!" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunny_01 2,007 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 "It wiznae ma fault honest!"I hope he fkn fights for us, only fkn thing he can do to claima tiny bit of dignity back Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,622 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 David Murray is making a statement on EBTs today.The statement will probably be, they are ok if used by celtic. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beattie72 170 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 This should be interesting Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Carpintero 546 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 More denial and deflection from Moonbeams. I have no interest in anything that bastard has to say. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marco Negri's Beard 1,423 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 You and More Than a Fan should have a fight to the death to once and for all decide who gets to post any Rangers related news first on this site Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwhiteandblue 3,330 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 david murray!! hes gony realease statement i believeabout time. This could be interesting. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peasie 103 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 The statement will probably be, they are ok if used by celtic.There is a fundamental difference in the way Rangers and Celtic operated the EBTs - or at least in their understanding of how the EBTs should be operated.Celtic believed (by paying tax on them) that they were contractual - but likely didn't declare this payment to SPL.Rangers believed (by not paying tax) that they were not contractual and so didn't need declaring to SPL. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregor Stevens Fan Club 42 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 There is a fundamental difference in the way Rangers and Celtic operated the EBTs - or at least in their understanding of how the EBTs should be operated.Celtic believed (by paying tax on them) that they were contractual - but likely didn't declare this payment to SPL.Rangers believed (by not paying tax) that they were not contractual and so didn't need declaring to SPL.And your evidence of this is............. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianBacon 2,088 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Ronnie esplin wrote a book on Rangers "its rangers for me"included the spunkbucket Spiers in it which didn't go down well.Aye, having been told by all and sundry that to use the Odious Creep it would cause untold ill-will towards the venture.He didn't listen, the book sales got hammered.Oh well.He was told. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carsons Dog 9,878 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Rangers believed (by not paying tax) that they were not contractual and so didn't need declaring to SPL.Other than publishing them in their accounts obviously Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joker69 60 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 This better not be another kick in the balls.Stand up for us Murray Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregor Stevens Fan Club 42 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 Murray's a busted flush - nobody takes what he's got to say on anything seriously nowadays. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smile 26,622 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 And your evidence of this is.............None or made up by the looks of things.It like a post straight from kerryfail street. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theiconicman 3,004 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 There is a fundamental difference in the way Rangers and Celtic operated the EBTs - or at least in their understanding of how the EBTs should be operated.Celtic believed (by paying tax on them) that they were contractual - but likely didn't declare this payment to SPL.Rangers believed (by not paying tax) that they were not contractual and so didn't need declaring to SPL.Sounds bollocks to me. Considering if you are paying tax on them and declaring them as contractual, they are NOT FUCKING EBTs. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peasie 103 Posted August 6, 2012 Share Posted August 6, 2012 None or made up by the looks of things.It like a post straight from kerryfail street.Did you even read what I wrote?Rangers didn't pay tax on EBTs because they didn't believe there was tax to pay. This is why there is a First Tier Tribulal (Tax) just now to determine who is right - Rangers or HMRC. Now if Rangers don't believe that it is a contractual payment then there is no need for them to declare this payment to SPL.Celtic on the other hand should be in deep shit. They believe there is tax to pay on the EBTs. And the only way there is tax to pay on an EBT is if it is a contractual payment. Now I'm fairly certain (no - I don't have any evidence) that Celtic will not have declared this contractual payment to the SPL. The tax on this payment was paid some years later.Can't you grasp that this (in my view) puts Celtic in GREATER danger than Rangers as they believed it to be a contractual payment whereas Rangers didn't?So why would this be a post from Kerryfail Street? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted August 6, 2012 Author Share Posted August 6, 2012 Ally has just said "the investigation is a waste of time" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.