The strange case of the SFA President and an EBT.

[ray 105]

Obviously, and the reason for that?

Because they are investigating if we have infringed their rules on full disclosure of payments made to "players".

Is there any particular part of ogilvie was an administrative employee that you do not understand, the terms of the FTTT are specific, employees not players as a single target.

The sfa/spl again put them self above the law, ogilvie was a director at the time specified by HMRC, again I repeat if using rhegans logic ogilvie has no case to answer then neither do we, unless of course you agree with rhegan, who also does not understand the remit of the FTTT.

Rangers were found by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to have breached tax rules through their use of employee benefit trusts (EBTs) to pay players and directors between 2001 and 2010.

That the media constantly refer to the FTTT as a player payment issue also does not make their statements correct, again it shows their ignorance for whatever reason of the FTTT remit.

The facts are as plain as day, if ogilvie has no case to answer neither do we, as I am more than confident will be the case.

[Hairy Rz 35]

Cannot believe I am about to type this but... Traynor in the Records article points out numerous lies being used to discredit our great club. Normally I cant finish anything he has written but at last a journalist in Scotland is putting to bed some of the EBT/SPL myths.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Is there any particular part of ogilvie was an administrative employee that you do not understand, the terms of the FTTT are specific, employees not players as a single target.

The sfa/spl again put them self above the law, ogilvie was a director at the time specified by HMRC, again I repeat if using rhegans logic ogilvie has no case to answer then neither do we, unless of course you agree with rhegan, who also does not understand the remit of the FTTT.

Rangers were found by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to have breached tax rules through their use of employee benefit trusts (EBTs) to pay players and directors between 2001 and 2010.

That the media constantly refer to the FTTT as a player payment issue also does not make their statements correct, again it shows their ignorance for whatever reason of the FTTT remit.

The facts are as plain as day, if ogilvie has no case to answer neither do we, as I am more than confident will be the case.

The Fttt case and the Spl/SFA case are two seperate issues. The Fttt are establishing if we broke tax rules which include all payments. The Spl/SFA are establishing if we broke football rules which only include payments to players.

[Big Al 55 9,296]

Is there any particular part of ogilvie was an administrative employee that you do not understand, the terms of the FTTT are specific, employees not players as a single target.

The sfa/spl again put them self above the law, ogilvie was a director at the time specified by HMRC, again I repeat if using rhegans logic ogilvie has no case to answer then neither do we, unless of course you agree with rhegan, who also does not understand the remit of the FTTT.

Rangers were found by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to have breached tax rules through their use of employee benefit trusts (EBTs) to pay players and directors between 2001 and 2010.

That the media constantly refer to the FTTT as a player payment issue also does not make their statements correct, again it shows their ignorance for whatever reason of the FTTT remit.

The facts are as plain as day, if ogilvie has no case to answer neither do we, as I am more than confident will be the case.

Is there any part of Ogilvie was not a player you do not understand (do you want me to make some of it bold??). EBT's are not illegal. The FTTT and the SPL inquiry are independent, we could have a positive ruling for the FTTT and still be found to have broken SPL rules.

Seriously you aren't worth arguing with. All you seem interested in is having a go at other bears.

[ray 105]

The Fttt case and the Spl/SFA case are two seperate issues. The Fttt are establishing if we broke tax rules which include all payments. The Spl/SFA are establishing if we broke football rules which only include payments to players.

No they are related, again the sfa have chosen to pre-empt the law of the land by saying ogilvie has no case to answer.

Meanwhile in the real world a court of record is sitting, the powers which govern the FTTT being such.

They have to return with a ruling which hopefully clears all of any infringements, however it could also go the other way, or it could say that The Rangers had no liability but such as ogilvie and murray do, the sfa will again look very foolish if the FTTT who are looking into ogilvie as well as anyone else decide ogilvie is indeed liable.

However if people wish to go the rhegan route that is their choice, the facts show a very different route.

[Ricky_ 893]

Is there any particular part of ogilvie was an administrative employee that you do not understand, the terms of the FTTT are specific, employees not players as a single target.

The sfa/spl again put them self above the law, ogilvie was a director at the time specified by HMRC, again I repeat if using rhegans logic ogilvie has no case to answer then neither do we, unless of course you agree with rhegan, who also does not understand the remit of the FTTT.

Rangers were found by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to have breached tax rules through their use of employee benefit trusts (EBTs) to pay players and directors between 2001 and 2010.

That the media constantly refer to the FTTT as a player payment issue also does not make their statements correct, again it shows their ignorance for whatever reason of the FTTT remit.

The facts are as plain as day, if ogilvie has no case to answer neither do we, as I am more than confident will be the case.

i think we'll win the SPL diddy court case too - but your clouding 2 issues with this post.

The SPL/SFA dont give a fuck about how much tax was paid on anyones EBT - they dont view Ogilvy, or any of our staff or playing staff as having done any wrong doing in accepting payments. This is purely a HMRC issue who think we manipulated a loophole and want us to fork out for it.

The SFA/SPL issue is they think we used EBT's to make undisclosed payments as part of a 2nd contract.

The most confusing part for me, really, is, considering there are no salary caps, then why is it even a rule breach? If salary caps were in place, it be a very clear breach of rules, we'd be using sneaky underhand payments to attract players which others couldnt. But we could pay them as much as we wanted anyway, so whats the problem?

[ray 105]

Is there any part of Ogilvie was not a player you do not understand (do you want me to make some of it bold??). EBT's are not illegal. The FTTT and the SPL inquiry are independent, we could have a positive ruling for the FTTT and still be found to have broken SPL rules.

Seriously you aren't worth arguing with. All you seem interested in is having a go at other bears.

Arguing ? you flatter yourself, I am pissing all over your defence of rhegans opinion with facts.

[Big Al 55 9,296]

Arguing ? you flatter yourself, I am pissing all over your defence of rhegans opinion with facts.

That is nonsense.

We are being investigated by the SPL for one reason, allegedly making payments to players which were not disclosed to the SPL, i.e. the payments were not defined in their contracts. Whether or not the FTTT goes in our favour is irrelevant wrt the SPL investigation.

We had the appeal hearing for the FTTT as a result of the way in which we administered the EBT's. As far as I'm aware HMRC aren't too interested in whether or not we told the SPL about the payments.

It's not difficult, the fact you think I'm defending Regan shows you up for how deluded you are with this silly post. Either that or you are incapable or unwilling to look at the facts objectively.

[ray 105]

I will leave it with you, perhaps you may catch on one day, but that I very much doubt.

rhegan has made another rickett in the ultra vires mode, as you and he will no doubt find out.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

No they are related, again the sfa have chosen to pre-empt the law of the land by saying ogilvie has no case to answer.

Meanwhile in the real world a court of record is sitting, the powers which govern the FTTT being such.

They have to return with a ruling which hopefully clears all of any infringements, however it could also go the other way, or it could say that The Rangers had no liability but such as ogilvie and murray do, the sfa will again look very foolish if the FTTT who are looking into ogilvie as well as anyone else decide ogilvie is indeed liable.

However if people wish to go the rhegan route that is their choice, the facts show a very different route.

Dear god. There is no hope if you can't understand the basics.

[Big Al 55 9,296]

I will leave it with you, perhaps you may catch on one day, but that I very much doubt.

rhegan has made another rickett in the ultra vires mode, as you and he will no doubt find out.

We will see.

[nachothelegend 1,932]

Cluster is the word that comes to mind.

[ray 105]

Dear god. There is no hope if you can't understand the basics.

The basics are very simple they may have escaped you, rhegan has pre-empted a court of record, ogilvie was a director and administrative officer of The Rangers, the remit of the FTTT is employees/staff/directors who where subject to an EBT scheme administered by MIH, the fact that the kangaroo court is looking at players in isolation does not make it right lawful or applicable.

sfa/spl statutes decree that all payments to directors from football earnings must be declared as with players, so to take rhegan at face value he is implying that ogilvies were declared and players weren't, his friendly lawyers decreed there is prima facie a case for us to answer....although all EBT's were recorded in all accounts submitted to sfa/spl that were the trigger for granting of all previous licences to The Rangers.

I really have to get a seat when the sfa/spl/rhegan are ripped to shreds by the solicitors clerk over this royal fuck-up.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

The basics are very simple they may have escaped you, rhegan has pre-empted a court of record, ogilvie was a director and administrative officer of The Rangers, the remit of the FTTT is employees/staff/directors who where subject to an EBT scheme administered by MIH, the fact that the kangaroo court is looking at players in isolation does not make it right lawful or applicable.

sfa/spl statutes decree that all payments to directors from football earnings must be declared as with players, so to take rhegan at face value he is implying that ogilvies were declared and players weren't, his friendly lawyers decreed there is prima facie a case for us to answer....although all EBT's were recorded in all accounts submitted to sfa/spl that were the trigger for granting of all previous licences to The Rangers.

I really have to get a seat when the sfa/spl/rhegan are ripped to shreds by the solicitors clerk over this royal fuck-up.

You are still not understanding that one case is to do with tax LAWS and the other case is to do with football RULES. You can break a rule without breaking the law. You can break a law without breaking a rule. They are not mutually exclusive. And I'm not saying that we have broke anything, just to be clear.

[ray 105]

You are still not understanding that one case is to do with tax LAWS and the other case is to do with football RULES. You can break a rule without breaking the law. You can break a law without breaking a rule. They are not mutually exclusive. And I'm not saying that we have broke anything, just to be clear.

You still do not understand both are related and by sfa/spl statute, once again rhegan had pre-empted a legal decision by a court of record, what happens if the FTTT says the club has no liability but the directors and architects of the EBT scheme do ? that of course will be superceded by "judge rhegan's" decree of no case to answer.

PS the FTTT is not about anyone breaking any tax laws, it is alleged mismanagement technicalities in how payments were assessed and processed.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

You still do not understand both are related and by sfa/spl statute, once again rhegan had pre-empted a legal decision by a court of record, what happens if the FTTT says the club has no liability but the directors and architects of the EBT scheme do ? that of course will be superceded by "judge rhegan's" decree of no case to answer.

Not if it hasn't broke their football rules.

Not to the SPL or SFA anyway.

[ray 105]

Not if it hasn't broke their football rules.

Not to the SPL or SFA anyway.

Yes and by the same token when the club is found to have no liability there is nothing for us to be "punished" for as all payments would have been legal within the law as "loans" so not a contractual payment.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

Yes and by the same token when the club is found to have no liability there is nothing for us to be "punished" for as all payments would have been legal within the law as "loans" so not a contractual payment.

As I said, we can still break rules whilst not breaking the law but your statement above is completely different from what you were setting out to say. The fact remains that regans statement has nothing to do with the Fttt case.

I believe if the Fttt finds in our favour, the SPL will quickly retreat into their shells and more than a few will be left as red as Stevie fultons coupon.

[ray 105]

As I said, we can still break rules whilst not breaking the law but your statement above is completely different from what you were setting out to say. The fact remains that regans statement has nothing to do with the Fttt case.

I believe if the Fttt finds in our favour, the SPL will quickly retreat into their shells and more than a few will be left as red as Stevie fultons coupon.

I never said rhegan's statement had anything to do with the EBT case nor would I as he has no remit no power in any court of record, that has not prevented him from pre-empting said court of record, something which you are all to keen to ignore.

The FTTT will decide if there is any misdemeanour's to be answered by ogilvie and his fellow directors, and if there is that will be a direct contravention of sfa/spl rules which they love to quote to us, rhegan is a bystander same as us as far as the FTTT is concerned.

[Non_Sucumbi 876]

To be honest they are NOT hounding any of the recipients of the EBT's only Rangers as the administrators of said scheme.

Rangers administered the scheme, did they??

My understanding is that the scheme was setup and administered by the 'Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust'.

[CanadianBacon 2,088]

Rangers administered the scheme, did they??

My understanding is that the scheme was setup and administered by the 'Murray Group Management Remuneration Trust'.

I'm sure I read somewhere not so long ago what the Murray Group made in fees for "managing" this fund.

It was an eye-watering figure.

Not like Murray to make anything out of The Rangers, eh?

[Non_Sucumbi 876]

I'm sure I read somewhere not so long ago what the Murray Group made in fees for "managing" this fund.

It was an eye-watering figure.

Not like Murray to make anything out of The Rangers, eh?

CB === the numbers I was aware of for offshore 'umbrella companies' was in the region of between 2.5% up to 5%. Given the money involved that's a helluva lot in 'management fees'. Not that SDM would would be seen to profit from Rangers.

[TheLawMan 6,240]

CB === the numbers I was aware of for offshore 'umbrella companies' was in the region of between 2.5% up to 5%. Given the money involved that's a helluva lot in 'management fees'. Not that SDM would would be seen to profit from Rangers.

2.5% is a million over 10 years. If true, it's hardly earth shattering.

[area51 19]

Murray received, via an EBT, from Rangers, £6.3 million over the piece. Ogilvie's was substantially less. The common factor in both was that they actually understood how an EBT worked. Unfortunately for us, yer average football agent and their clients didn't, hence the side letters/agreements. This is why we find ourselves in the shyte we are in.

[ray 105]

Murray received, via an EBT, from Rangers, £6.3 million over the piece. Ogilvie's was substantially less. The common factor in both was that they actually understood how an EBT worked. Unfortunately for us, yer average football agent and their clients didn't, hence the side letters/agreements. This is why we find ourselves in the shyte we are in.

murray received £6.3m via an EBT.

He told the BBC he had never received any payment from any trust which involved contributions from Rangers FC.