Murray's statement re EBTs

[Shuggy 1,308]

I can see the SPL retrofitting EBTs into their law book - if their rules only covered contracts prior to this ...

[eosmhdo 1,879]

I have no idea what you are talking about...do you ?

Yep and believe you do to as well

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

"Bayoneting the wounded is neither justified or proportionate." David Murray #Rangers

[jmo21 15]

Nothing really new in those statements is there?

It's always been his position that the way we (he?) handled EBT's was fine and above board.

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

Nothing really new in those statements is there?

It's always been his position that the way we (he?) handled EBT's was fine and above board.

Throughout the years Murray has only spoken when he needs to. When it matters.

[Gregor Stevens Fan Club 42]

David Murray also accuses the SPL of attempting to "retrospectively rewrite laws to incorporate items not previously covered." #Rangers

It would make sense if he made clear which/what laws the SPL are retrospectively rewriting.

[boss 1,941]

Murray, McCoist and McLeish all on the front foot today re EBTs. That's not coincidental. I expect more tomorrow, probably from Traynor.

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

Not a surprise to see SDM go on the attack when threatened but can he successfully defend against the kangaroo court & poor public opinion?

Are you frankie?

[Gregor Stevens Fan Club 42]

Big cheers to the admin for combining the multiple threads !!

(arselickers loyal )

[North Rd 2,860]

Are you frankie?

I was copy and pasting everything coming up on Twitter and got Frankies as well

[boss 1,941]

Murray's full statement:

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.

[jmo21 15]

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.

Erm.... obviously that is the position we want to take, but it also the one being challenged by HMRC and the SPL with the side letters as "evidence" against it.

It says a lot, but nothing we didn't already know.

[Gregor Stevens Fan Club 42]

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.

I guess that statement answers my previous question.

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

I was copy and pasting everything coming up on Twitter and got Frankies as well

[Gregor Stevens Fan Club 42]

The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates.

Interesting............

[The Godfather 73,081]

“I, of course, wish the "new" Rangers every success for the future.”

Don’t want your well wishes Murray! All you were asked to do was run the club correctly and you made a pigs ear of it tbh. We are not a ‘new’ club either, this is still the club I supported since I was a boy and will be the same club my grandchildren support in the future!

Thanks for nothing.

[boss 1,941]

Why has it taken this long for him to say something?!

Not sure, but as we now have our full SFA licence, they can't take it off us. If the fightback had started earlier, would we have got the transfer of licence?

[Davy 68]

Too little, too late.

[Peasie 103]

“I, of course, wish the "new" Rangers every success for the future.”

Don’t want your well wishes Murray! All you were asked to do was run the club correctly and you made a pigs ear of it tbh. We are not a ‘new’ club either, this is still the club I supported since I was a boy and will be the same club my grandchildren support in the future!

Thanks for nothing.

I read Murray's comment as having a dig at those insisting on calling Rangers newco - hence the reason he put it in quotation marks.

[Allanger 625]

In spite of myself I will concede that is a decent statement.Murray still has influence with the media and what it requires is that he focuses on our plight and tries to get a groundswell of opinions in our favour.

PS. A lot of crap.The media are never going to support us. They have their teeth into us and aint going to let us go.Bastards.

See,I'm talking to myself now

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

I have no idea why Sir David would come out and say all this if these much fabled side letters existed....good to see the club, past and present, resisting this farcical investigation

[GeneralCartmanLee 313]

“I, of course, wish the "new" Rangers every success for the future.”

Don’t want your well wishes Murray! All you were asked to do was run the club correctly and you made a pigs ear of it tbh. We are not a ‘new’ club either, this is still the club I supported since I was a boy and will be the same club my grandchildren support in the future!

Thanks for nothing.

Did you read the whole statement and understand why the inverted commas were used...it doesn't seem like you did.....

[Peasie 103]

"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."

Robbie Keane?

[Allanger 625]

"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."

Robbie Keane?

I would love that to be so. If we are going to be hammered then I want us to drag a few down with us

[adam2102 582]

why are people having a go at murray for this statement?

for all his sins (and there are plenty) this is a well worded and firm statement - and i for one am more than happy if someone is going to stick up for our club