Thermopylae 15,287 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Why we (apparently) didn't include the EBTs in the individual players contracts that were submitted to the SFA but we did include the them in the accounts they got at the end of each season. If true it was a staggering omission that has really left a lose end for liewell and his lackeys to exploit Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peasie 103 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 If they were included in the contract then they are not an EBT, they are wages and taxable. And the accounts and seasons are not related. The accounts are for the company's accounting year (which for convenience sake I would imagine relates to the football season. The accounts don't come immediately following the end of a season. It can be 9 months later before they are published. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVB 2,560 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Please!Just stop giving oxygen to the dreams of idiots.We won everything fair and square, end of story.Its been discussed ad nauseum, and proven beyond any doubt already on here by various people. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 If they were included in the contract then they are not an EBT, they are wages and taxable. And the accounts and seasons are not related. The accounts are for the company's accounting year (which for convenience sake I would imagine relates to the football season. The accounts don't come immediately following the end of a season. It can be 9 months later before they are published.Well how can the sfa complain about them not being in the players contracts then? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 Please!Just stop giving oxygen to the dreams of idiots.We won everything fair and square, end of story.Its been discussed ad nauseum, and proven beyond any doubt already on here by various people.I hope nimmo agrees Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVB 2,560 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I hope nimmo agrees He's already been shown to be conflicted.No judgement made by him will hold any (holy) water. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nachothelegend 1,932 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Please!Just stop giving oxygen to the dreams of idiots.We won everything fair and square, end of story.Its been discussed ad nauseum, and proven beyond any doubt already on here by various people.Exacto ,this is the Key issue even if we had no EBT's Murray would still have went out and bought the Players we had. It realy would not have made one jot of differance , and for any one to say otherwise is purely conjecture ,and hypothetical and clutching at Straws to make Rangers look bad.It is quite simply one upmanship.We all know Murray would have done it the way he was running the show.He is a Gambler trust me. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFC55 110,161 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 I'm fucking mwi! Hate ket Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiet Jim 897 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Why we (apparently) didn't include the EBTs in the individual players contracts that were submitted to the SFA but we did include the them in the accounts they got at the end of each season. If true it was a staggering omission that has really left a lose end for liewell and his lackeys to exploit Employee Benefit Trusts are non contractual.They are discretionary payments.HMRC have not got a leg to stand on unless a contractual 'side letter' stipulates that the player receives the same payment, regardless of performance.But my thought on the matter are; QJ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getstiffed 8,863 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Ive said many times on here in the last 2 months, they have over-reached with use their use of the EBT issue, they have exposed themselves to the point that no amount of sweeping (not even Triggers broom) could hide it. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Why we (apparently) didn't include the EBTs in the individual players contracts that were submitted to the SFA but we did include the them in the accounts they got at the end of each season. If true it was a staggering omission that has really left a lose end for liewell and his lackeys to exploit Eh? If they were included in contracts they couldn't have been EBTs. Have you misunderstood the whole situation? Tax avoidance schemes are - autonomously - schemes used to avoid tax. If you earn money as part of your wages, you pay PAYE on that money. If it's a separate - and legitimately non-taxable- income - you don't pay 40% (or more nowadays) tax. Especially if it's a loan.The fact they were included in the accounts shows two things:We didn't know we were doing anything wrong;The SFA are as culpable as we are, they accepted these accounts for a decade... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 Eh? If they were included in contracts they couldn't have been EBTs. Have you misunderstood the whole situation? Tax avoidance schemes are - autonomously - schemes used to avoid tax. If you earn money as part of your wages, you pay PAYE on that money. If it's a separate - and legitimately non-taxable- income - you don't pay 40% (or more nowadays) tax. Especially if it's a loan.The fact they were included in the accounts shows two things:We didn't know we were doing anything wrong;The SFA are as culpable as we are, they accepted these accounts for a decade...Exactly, so if any club had used EBTs (which were legal) they must have had "duel contracts" so what was the problem? Basically I just can't believe that the sfa would go to so much trouble when they apparently don't have a leg to stand on Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quiet Jim 897 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Ive said many times on here in the last 2 months, they have over-reached with use their use of the EBT issue, they have exposed themselves to the point that no amount of sweeping (not even Triggers broom) could hide it.HMRC are trying to make an example, if we fall all of MIH falls.We never defended the EBT issue, MIH did.Your use of 'they', 'their', 'themselves' and 'sweeping' only means one thing.QJ Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Getstiffed 8,863 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 HMRC are trying to make an example, if we fall all of MIH falls.We never defended the EBT issue, MIH did.Your use of 'they', 'their', 'themselves' and 'sweeping' only means one thing.QJThat I'm talking about the SPL and their lackeys and their use of the issue to batter us over the head with? That there was no wrong doing on our part and they know it, but yet choose to go on with it, exposing how corrupt and bigoted they are? Thus, no amount of sweeping it under the carpet is going to stop people seeing this for what it is, just what Charlie said: a witch hunt. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dexiboy 157 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Chinese wrighting Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray 105 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Why we (apparently) didn't include the EBTs in the individual players contracts that were submitted to the SFA but we did include the them in the accounts they got at the end of each season. If true it was a staggering omission that has really left a lose end for liewell and his lackeys to exploit Discretionary not contractual. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Exactly so if any club had used EBT (which were legal) they must have had "duel contracts" so what was the problem? Basically I just can't believe that the sfa would go to so much trouble when they apparently don't have a leg to stand on Some facts:EBTs are legal;EBTs cannot be used as salary;The SPL say we used EBTs as salary (but celtc used them as a cuddly incentive with nothing to see here and no case to answer);If we (or any club) have players contracted under two contracts (salary + EBT) we're in trouble. Unless it's celtc (no case to answer).I can't see how the SPL can say they accepted accounts each year with the EBTs clearly displayed in them but now realise they are illegal so we are to be punished. I await an explanation of that one....... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Carpintero 546 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Why we (apparently) didn't include the EBTs in the individual players contracts that were submitted to the SFA but we did include the them in the accounts they got at the end of each season. If true it was a staggering omission that has really left a lose end for liewell and his lackeys to exploit Been doing a bit of digging for them have we? Why mention something like that on a public forum? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 Surely to prove this the sfa would need to have one of these dual contracts in their possession?TBH it seems unbelievable that our lawyers at the time could have made such a mistake (if indeed they did) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 Been doing a bit of digging for them have we? Why mention something like that on a public forum?Yes I'm one of liewell's sleepers (at 58,017 posts it's been a very deep sleep ) Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluepeter 5,627 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 Surely to prove this the sfa would need to have one of these duel contracts in their possession?TBH it seems unbelievable that our lawyers at the time could have made such a mistake (if indeed they did)I like that sound of duel contracts. Is it Parker pens at dawn? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
legalbeagle 3,734 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 The only real problem for me, as a Scot who has lived in England for nearly a decade, is that Scotland as a nation seems to have moved beyond all sense of logic and reason, therefore, I suspect that no matter what the facts are and the evidence says, the ruling will be the one that our enemies clearly want. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 I like that sound of duel contracts. Is it Parker pens at dawn? Touché Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thermopylae 15,287 Posted September 22, 2012 Author Share Posted September 22, 2012 The only real problem for me, as a Scot who has lived in England for nearly a decade, is that Scotland as a nation seems to have moved beyond all sense of logic and reason, therefore, I suspect that no matter what the facts are and the evidence says, the ruling will be the one that our enemies clearly want.I think there is probably something in that ... it seems to have come this far on very little substance so there is obviously something driving it along Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlippinEck 3,736 Posted September 22, 2012 Share Posted September 22, 2012 The fact is, if the SFA/SPL knew about them and signed it off, allowed us to play then they really shouldnt be coming back now and trying to punish us. They can wait for the big tax case result but they are not interested in this from a tax point of view. They are interested in it from a player point of view and if we bought players we couldnt afford thus them being ineligible. Thats always been my take on it anyway. They will try and punish us regardless of what the HMRC outcome 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.