EBTs and the Stripping of Titles

[madmacmacmad 12]

The way I've always seen the EBT investigation is this:

The panel is set up to decide, whether or not Rangers issued dual contracts. If found guilty, this would only prove that at best Rangers were guilty of an administrative oversight or at worst deception against the SFA (or we may find the SFA were completly incompetent because we told them everything, which wouldn't be a surprise).

This can never be grounds for stripping of titles, as there is no proof that this administrative blunder gave an advantage. If the SPL tried to strip titles, it would be taken to court and they'd lose on those grounds.

The SPL need to wait on the BTC to find Rangers guilty (if we ever were) of wrongdoing, before they could do anything such as stripping of titles. IF (and it' a big IF) we were found guilty, then the only reasonable way of determining if we had an unfair advantage in winning those titles, would be to look at the Balance Sheet as at the date each transfer took place, and determine whether a 'reasonable person' would have bought those players and paid the wages they demanded (including ETB payments, if we lose the BTC) or whether SDM was defrauding HMRC by doing that.

At the end of the day, even if we couldn't afford them, we're talking about gearing (using someone else's money to do the deal) so the next stage of that investigation, would be to determine whether or not that gearing was excessive. Only then, could the SPL decide whether we gained an unfair advantage. Remember, the £50m (or whatever was quoted) bill only came to light when HMRC tried to pursue us...it wasn't a liability when we dealt bought the players or paid them.

The chances therefore of the SPL stripping us of titles has to be slim, and if their 'compromised' panel decided that was the outcome, it will be dragged through the courts on this basis (if Charlie has the balls, which I think he's shown so far).

The lawyers need to PROVE we received an unfair advantage, and they can only do this through forensic accounting and judging what a reasonable person would have done in that situation. Again, this is on the basis that DM thought this was totally legal, which would form the defence (ie he acted in good faith when dealing in transfers).

Of course, I think we learned over the summer that the SPL/SFA make up the rules as they go along, so no doubt we WILL be found guilty and have to go through the courts, but I reckon the scum would be on the losing end of the legal bill. That said, if they did have proof to find we didn't log the contracts, the could employ sanctions of some sort (fines/bans), and we probably wouldn't be able to challenge that through the courts (their game, their rules).

Anyone else on here who would back up this rough framework or see any flaws in this logic.

[rangersxfc 265]

very simple mate two teams have used EBTs in scotland only one is being investigated says it all

[madmacmacmad 12]

Well, only one is being investigated by the others' lawyers

[DEXYSC 23]

I look at it simplistically! The logic is that Rangers gained a sporting edge by buying players they wouldn't have if it wasn't for the EBT scheme!

So the big question would be to David Murray "If you didn't have the EBT scheme would you still have signed the players in question!"

The answer would be an emphatic yes because he has a history of spending money over and above the income at RFC. Murray can prove that and they couldn't prove otherwise!

[madmacmacmad 12]

I think you're right, bit of a short-cut to my conclusion, but pretty much the same point.

[sergio 1,199]

Fuck them all

[54andcounting 627]

I look at it simplistically! The logic is that Rangers gained a sporting edge by buying players they wouldn't have if it wasn't for the EBT scheme!

So the big question would be to David Murray "If you didn't have the EBT scheme would you still have signed the players in question!"

The answer would be an emphatic yes because he has a history of spending money over and above the income at RFC. Murray can prove that and they couldn't prove otherwise!

What I can't get my head round this is, Abramovich In his eight completed seasons in charge, Chelsea spent an incredible £642,584,000 on buying players — and then a mindboggling £1,170,591,000 on paying them. That makes an eye-watering total of £1,813,175,000.

Add a further £66m lavished on the likes of Juan Mata last year, a little more on Gary Cahill in January and wages so far this season and hey presto — £2bn has gone on the club.

So what the fuck is that then ok it's not EBT but it's some "sporting edge" .

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

Regrettably the HMRC EBT enquiry has no real bearing on what the SPL will come up with in their "investigation". They have already basically found us guilty due to Celtic's lawyers having decided we have a case to answer.

We have more chance being cleared by HMRC than we have of the SPL enquiry. The new SPL enquiry is simply to decide the punishment, not the guilt. They will deny that but we all know it is true.

As soon as we receive the guilty verdict and the outrageously severe penalties (yes penalties plural) we will fail with the appeal to Regan of Celtic the SFA and then I can see this going to the Court of Arbitration in Sport. We can cite that Arsenal and Celtic both utilised EBTs without any penalty from the football authorities. We can also prove that we have not hidden anything from the SPL or SFA as the EBTs were clearly noted in our audited accounts which both organisations received.

We have not cheated, there was no match-rigging, no officials bribed, no performance-enhancing drugs taken. In short we gained no advantage from the use of the EBT scheme.

An EBT scheme is not handled by the company (RFC) but by independent trustees. The Trustees have the responsibility over what amounts were paid out in the form of "loans" and when. RFC didn't make the payouts it was the The Murray Group Management Ltd. Remuneration Trust (MGMLRT). The MGMLRT was totally separate from RFC. I can't see where any payout can be contractual in the form of regular guaranteed payments such as a salary or wages when it is made by another organisation entirely and at the discretion of the trustees of such organisation.

As for the amount of tax claimed by HMRC it totals £19.06 over the 10 year period of operation. The rest is interest and penalties claimed by HMRC. That is an average of only £1.9m per year. The amount paid out through the EBT scheme is only approx 15% of the RFC wage costs over the said period.

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

I look at it simplistically! The logic is that Rangers gained a sporting edge by buying players they wouldn't have if it wasn't for the EBT scheme!

So the big question would be to David Murray "If you didn't have the EBT scheme would you still have signed the players in question!"

The answer would be an emphatic yes because he has a history of spending money over and above the income at RFC. Murray can prove that and they couldn't prove otherwise!

The average tax saving was only £1.9m per year and it was the players who made the saving. The EBT scheme was something they could choose to use or not, they still received a contractual salary which would have been paid monthly.

[Getstiffed 8,863]

I look at it simplistically! The logic is that Rangers gained a sporting edge by buying players they wouldn't have if it wasn't for the EBT scheme!

So the big question would be to David Murray "If you didn't have the EBT scheme would you still have signed the players in question!"

The answer would be an emphatic yes because he has a history of spending money over and above the income at RFC. Murray can prove that and they couldn't prove otherwise!

Yeah, that mental logic where, we spent money we didnt have......by spending money we had.

Caaaaaarrrrrrrazzy.

[54andcounting 627]

Why is it that when we have a tread on this! the guests count is so big! (42 guests)

[corkinator 611]

There will be total anarchy if we are found guilty, I also find it turkey astonishing that not one media outlet has looked at the fact harper McLeod is being used as the prosecution.

[madmacmacmad 12]

Harper McLeod employees realising it won't be as an easy a case as they thought, so they've all been called in?

Why is it that when we have a tread on this! the guests count is so big! (42 guests)

[Jonok 1,245]

Regrettably the HMRC EBT enquiry has no real bearing on what the SPL will come up with in their "investigation". They have already basically found us guilty due to Celtic's lawyers having decided we have a case to answer.

We have more chance being cleared by HMRC than we have of the SPL enquiry. The new SPL enquiry is simply to decide the punishment, not the guilt. They will deny that but we all know it is true.

As soon as we receive the guilty verdict and the outrageously severe penalties (yes penalties plural) we will fail with the appeal to Regan of Celtic the SFA and then I can see this going to the Court of Arbitration in Sport. We can cite that Arsenal and Celtic both utilised EBTs without any penalty from the football authorities. We can also prove that we have not hidden anything from the SPL or SFA as the EBTs were clearly noted in our audited accounts which both organisations received.

We have not cheated, there was no match-rigging, no officials bribed, no performance-enhancing drugs taken. In short we gained no advantage from the use of the EBT scheme.

An EBT scheme is not handled by the company (RFC) but by independent trustees. The Trustees have the responsibility over what amounts were paid out in the form of "loans" and when. RFC didn't make the payouts it was the The Murray Group Management Ltd. Remuneration Trust (MGMLRT). The MGMLRT was totally separate from RFC. I can't see where any payout can be contractual in the form of regular guaranteed payments such as a salary or wages when it is made by another organisation entirely and at the discretion of the trustees of such organisation.

As for the amount of tax claimed by HMRC it totals £19.06 over the 10 year period of operation. The rest is interest and penalties claimed by HMRC. That is an average of only £1.9m per year. The amount paid out through the EBT scheme is only approx 15% of the RFC wage costs over the said period.

Excellent post

[Smile 26,622]

Who can really be bothered Reading this pish now its like the Taxcase shite we used to get all the taigs on talking about.

[Bear78 96]

Has spl moved the goalposts again as I read that the case to answer was wether we had side contracts or kept our records with them in order? If we did then they are punishing us for something they always knew about and never said was wrong to let RFC know there was a problem. What a joke this mob are as it means they are concerning themselves with all the potential ramifications of the big tax case being proven against us without knowing the verdict of that case

should the spl be renamed 'stalinist premeir league'?

If I'm wrong, forgive me, difficult keeping up to date with all the shit that gets flung at our club, constantly amazed

[allcinaye 336]

I think that Section D1.13A of The Rules of the Scottish Premier League is the one being referred to with regards to the so called dual contract allegations.

At first glance it appears to be pretty straightforward until you consider the meaning of ‘all other agreements providing payment’. What does that mean?

That’s a pretty ambiguous request which surely leaves it open to conjecture such as, payment for what? This is the part of the rule that they are trying to hang us out to dry for as we will obviously have returned the Contracts of Service which specifically relates to football matters.

D1.13 A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player, to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.