Jump to content

Spl EBT -conflict of interests


robg58
 Share

Recommended Posts

Interesting Conflicts – SPL EBT Hypocrisy

Article By Chris Graham

The news that Celtic have been cleared of any culpability for the EBT they used for Juninho in the 2004/2005 season comes as no surprise to those of us who have followed this case and the people prosecuting it. However, I do feel it is worth highlighting as it is yet another example of the hypocrisy and corruption at the SPL.

It is worth noting some things regarding the operation of EBT schemes. The issue of whether tax was paid on the EBTs has nothing to do with the SPL investigation into Rangers. The issue is purely whether the loans from the EBT scheme for players were declared to the SPL and SFA and whether they required to be declared.

It is clear that Rangers did not specifically declare them because they do not consider them to be payments. The whole point of the scheme is that they are loans. That leaves us only with the question of whether they required to be declared i.e were they payments.

Now, those who demand Rangers be punished like to muddy the waters by talking about HMRC, unpaid tax, sporting advantage and higher moral considerations. The only consideration for the SPL, however, is were they payments and were they declared.

The SPL have decided that Rangers have a case to answer. Today they have decided that Celtic do not. This is curious in relation to the above since, on the 23rd May, the BBC claim to have written to all SPL clubs asking about use of EBTs. The following is exactly what they were told.

“BBC Scotland Investigates wrote to all of the Scottish Premier League’s member clubs and asked whether they had ever operated an EBT scheme.

Celtic confirmed that it established one EBT scheme in April 2005, which BBC Scotland understands was for the benefit of the Brazilian midfielder Juninho Paulista. The scheme was worth £765,000 but the club did not declare the trust payment to the Scottish Football Association or the Scottish Premier League.

The payments made to the trust were declared in Celtic’s annual report for 2004/2005, but in 2008 the club became aware of an event giving rise to a potential tax liability which was subsequently paid after agreement with HMRC.

The remaining 10 SPL clubs replied and confirmed they had never set up an EBT scheme for any of their employees.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...-west-18169502

Now it is quite clear from this that Celtic did operate an EBT and they did not declare it to the SPL or SFA as part of Juninho’s registration. This makes the case absolutely identical to the Rangers case. So why is there no case to answer?

That is a difficult question. Celtic like to claim it is because they paid the tax that HMRC felt was due for the use of the EBT. This appears to be true but does not in any way impact on the registration issue. Either the EBT was declared on the registration or it was not. The issue of tax paid is one for HMRC.

When considering this, we need to know who actually investigated on behalf of the SPL. At the moment we don’t. It is well documented that Rod McKenzie of Harper MacLeod has conducted the investigation into Rangers. Harper Macleod are the SPL lawyers on this matter so it seems likely to be the case that they would have examined the Celtic case too. They can’t have though, because that would be as clear a case of conflict of interest as you could ever get. Harper Macleod are also Celtic lawyers and it would be unethical and utterly absurd for them to have been involved here.

So who at the SPL decided there was no case to answer? Was another law firm employed to investigate Celtic? If so, then why was this firm not also used to investigate Rangers given the issues with Rod McKenzie and Celtic’s lawyers doing so? If the BBC information is correct then how did these nameless investigators come to the conclusion that the evidence did not need to be examined by an ‘independent’ tribunal? It is clearly an identical situation.

Let me be absolutely clear. I think the SPL made the correct decision regarding Celtic. The idea that a sporting advantage was gained from EBTs is absurd. EBTs could never have been declared to the SPL because doing so would have rendered the whole point of them, a tax benefit, unavailable.

In a competition where there is no salary cap on players, the rules on registration exist purely to protect players and ensure that in areas of dispute the players can show exactly what they are contractually due. To my knowledge, no Rangers or Celtic players are complaining that they did not receive payments they were due.

The SPL investigation is a sham. It is an excuse to further attack Rangers. There is no sporting advantage, no ‘financial doping’, no match fixing. The fact that a player is being paid is important because that is why registration is needed – how much they are being paid is totally irrelevant. These claims are absurd and have been made specifically to inflame public opinion ahead of a pre-determined verdict.

If the SPL got it absolutely correct on Celtic then the question should be why are they pursuing Rangers? The answer to that lies with the people conducting the witch hunt and it is about time the media in this country started doing their job and asked the required questions.

http://chrisgraham76.wordpress.com/2...ebt-hypocrisy/

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 141
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The celtic decision sets precedent which Rangers can use if this goes to court.

Since the cases are identical any judge would be forced to conclude that Rangers were being treated differently.

That, together with the conflicts of interest would definitely see Rangers win any case.

I'm not a lawyer but I can't see how they could offer any counter argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good article by Chris and mirrors some my suspisions of that I said in another thread, but with a with more detail.

When I heard the septic announcement I was gobsmaked, and it adds more weight to the argument that we are indeed being targeted as the septic case has not had nearly as much publicity as our case, so I wouldn't hold my breath for journos to reveal anything about corruption in high places. That sort of journalism disapeeared in the 80's with the Thatcherite manipulation view to news and infromeation, carries on with great skill by the labour party, to the extent that crating sensational headlines is more important than reporting the truth about things.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The celtic decision sets precedent which Rangers can use if this goes to court.

Since the cases are identical any judge would be forced to conclude that Rangers were being treated differently.

That, together with the conflicts of interest would definitely see Rangers win any case.

I'm not a lawyer but I can't see how they could offer any counter argument.

Kind of, but not really, the decision against them is only an investigative decision, we will be the first in court if it gets that far.

The SPL have set up a kangaroo court by way of investigation on a matter which should not concern them, they have no legal power and it has not affected the game on the pitch. But in front of a legal court for charges i really can't see how we can be punished for using a legal loophole thats now recently been closed. When it closed, we adhered to it and stopped. I honestly don't think even HMRC believe they have a strong case on this one otherwise we would hav been hauled up quicker.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you point it out and offer a correction please?

To be fair to GCL I was under the impression that we were under investigation for dual contracts not whether we disclosed the payments or not. Although this is the case they should be under investigation for not declaring the payment as that is in the SPL rules as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair to GCL I was under the impression that we were under investigation for dual contracts not whether we disclosed the payments or not. Although this is the case they should be under investigation for not declaring the payment as that is in the SPL rules as well.

It's the payments and the alleged paperwork behind those payments which give rise to the allegation of dual contracts. So it's one and the same thing.

For GCL to try to nitpick over such detail, and start an argument for the sake of it instead of praising the article itself, says much about GCL.

And you can have as many :sherlock: :sherlock: :sherlock: :sherlock: :sherlock: :sherlock: smilies as you want.

:sherlock:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the payments and the alleged paperwork behind those payments which give rise to the allegation of dual contracts. So it's one and the same thing.

For GCL to try to nitpick over such detail, and start an argument for the sake of it instead of praising the article itself, says much about GCL.

And you can have as many :sherlock: :sherlock: :sherlock: :sherlock: :sherlock: :sherlock: smilies as you want.

:sherlock:

pendantry...now who is the boss of that around here... :sherlock: and normally with good reason.

I disagree it's minor point but anyway i'll leave this here, didn't realise this was a praise only thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it will come down to HMRC and the FTTT. If they find that the EBT was used as payments and therefore subject to Tax then the Tribunal will have us, if not then we really can't have a case to answer.

I don't think that is strictly true, if the FTT goes against us it depends why it goes against it if it is even relevant to the SPL investigation. Remember we listed our EBT payments on our books which were signed off by both organisations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

pendantry...now who is the boss of that around here... :sherlock: and normally with good reason.

I disagree it's minor point but anyway i'll leave this here, didn't realise this was a praise only thread.

I've just explained to you why it's one and the same thing. Your reply is "I'll leave this here". Ah well, you almost accepted your error.

You really should have a good think to yourself about your constant attempts to disrupt threads for no apparent reason other than to be deliberately confrontational. It's not healthy for RM and has not gone unnoticed by many. I'll leave this here. (tu)

Link to post
Share on other sites

No Way!! There couldn't possibly be a conflict of interest.

1) The governing body wouldn't allow such corruption, surely

2) Someone in the wide, wide world of 'The Media' would have stumbled upon this startling news and released it

3) There can't be a conflict because they all only have one interest. To try and destroy Rangers

Face to Face in a square fight they can't beat us. They missed their chance this summer. We were on our knees, with knives being plunged into our back everyday. That was their moment.

Well, we're standing now. Battered and bruised, aye, but scars will heal (slowly) and bruises will fade. We're pissed off and just itching for a fight. Who's first? SPL? SFA? What about you Scum? You been awful quiet lately.

I can't wait to destroy ALL these cunts

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very well put .

Why won't the media do their jobs?

They can't all be in the pocket

The only way we are ever gonna get these cowardly hacks to show any true unbiased journalism, is to hurt them where it does most. Financially.

We need an all out, OFFICIAL, fans boycott of the Scottish press.

I know many fans who don't buy the rags anymore, listen to snyde fm etc, but there must be many thousands of bears who still do.

If EVERY bear turned their backs on newspapers, radio shows, phone ins etc, they would all be out of a job within weeks.

Every fans group and forum should be united and call for it now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What he said about the reasons for the investigation in the second paragraph is incorrect....

I better not point that out though

You just did point it out. You are also wrong but I am sure that won't stop you.

Let me try and dig out that excellent informative post you did on this topic so I can compare....Hmm seems I can't find it. Maybe you can help?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Upcoming Events

    • 09 December 2021 17:45 Until 19:45
      0  
      Lyon v Rangers
      Stade des Lumieres
      UEFA Europa League

×
×
  • Create New...