Court Defence

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,510]

Serious question here, but what sort of defence do we run with if, as I think we expect, the kangaroo court try to take titles?

The biggest unanswered question in this to me is around the HMRC enquiry. Although people like to point out that these are not linked, they pretty much are. The HMRC needs to prove that the EBTs were committed, contractual payments. If the HMRC win the case against the OldCo, then I think the SPL will try to strip titles.

If the HMRC lose, then I cannot for the life of me see the SPL being stupid enough to try and strip the titles (well it is the SPL, so you never know!).

Honestly speaking, I think the HMRC will get at least a partial win, which the SPL will try to exploit, although it cannot be as open and shut as the media portray given the length of time the decision is taking, so we could still win.

I think that Green should take them to court for defamation and the devaluing of the brand. Once in court the defence team should highlight as much as possible the SPL's decision to drop the Juninho EBT investigation.

The SPLs stance is that since the payment was made after he finished playing, that it was somehow fine. However if you take the following example, its obvious how this does not stand up:-

1. Player A enters talk with club.

2. Club offers 1 year contract with base salary of £20k per week.

3. Club informs Player A that on the termination of his contract, he will receive a payment of £1m into an EBT. They dont disclose this to the authorities as it wont be actioned till after his employment ends.

4. Player signs, and struggles for a year on a measly £20k a week, knowing the other £1m (his salary again) is safe for his nest egg.

Now according to the SPL, the above scenario is perfectly legal, yet has exactly the same net effect as the one they are trying to do us for.

On the basis of this, I would say the defence would have a good case that the SPLs rules are not fit for purpose and that their application thus far has proven that they are willing to accept the same net effect without punishment and that it would be discriminatory behaviour from one club to another, whilst causing both unfair reputation damage and a tangible financial damage.

[Quiet Jim 897]

Serious question here, but what sort of defence do we run with if, as I think we expect, the kangaroo court try to take titles?

The biggest unanswered question in this to me is around the HMRC enquiry. Although people like to point out that these are not linked, they pretty much are. The HMRC needs to prove that the EBTs were committed, contractual payments. If the HMRC win the case against the OldCo, then I think the SPL will try to strip titles.

If the HMRC lose, then I cannot for the life of me see the SPL being stupid enough to try and strip the titles (well it is the SPL, so you never know!).

Honestly speaking, I think the HMRC will get at least a partial win, which the SPL will try to exploit, although it cannot be as open and shut as the media portray given the length of time the decision is taking, so we could still win.

I think that Green should take them to court for defamation and the devaluing of the brand. Once in court the defence team should highlight as much as possible the SPL's decision to drop the Juninho EBT investigation.

The SPLs stance is that since the payment was made after he finished playing, that it was somehow fine. However if you take the following example, its obvious how this does not stand up:-

1. Player A enters talk with club.

2. Club offers 1 year contract with base salary of £20k per week.

3. Club informs Player A that on the termination of his contract, he will receive a payment of £1m into an EBT. They dont disclose this to the authorities as it wont be actioned till after his employment ends.

4. Player signs, and struggles for a year on a measly £20k a week, knowing the other £1m (his salary again) is safe for his nest egg.

Now according to the SPL, the above scenario is perfectly legal, yet has exactly the same net effect as the one they are trying to do us for.

On the basis of this, I would say the defence would have a good case that the SPLs rules are not fit for purpose and that their application thus far has proven that they are willing to accept the same net effect without punishment and that it would be discriminatory behaviour from one club to another, whilst causing both unfair reputation damage and a tangible financial damage.

http://www.bentjudges.com/alleged_conspiracy.html

[dougiebear62 14]

Serious question here, but what sort of defence do we run with if, as I think we expect, the kangaroo court try to take titles?

The biggest unanswered question in this to me is around the HMRC enquiry. Although people like to point out that these are not linked, they pretty much are. The HMRC needs to prove that the EBTs were committed, contractual payments. If the HMRC win the case against the OldCo, then I think the SPL will try to strip titles.

If the HMRC lose, then I cannot for the life of me see the SPL being stupid enough to try and strip the titles (well it is the SPL, so you never know!).

Honestly speaking, I think the HMRC will get at least a partial win, which the SPL will try to exploit, although it cannot be as open and shut as the media portray given the length of time the decision is taking, so we could still win.

I think that Green should take them to court for defamation and the devaluing of the brand. Once in court the defence team should highlight as much as possible the SPL's decision to drop the Juninho EBT investigation.

The SPLs stance is that since the payment was made after he finished playing, that it was somehow fine. However if you take the following example, its obvious how this does not stand up:-

1. Player A enters talk with club.

2. Club offers 1 year contract with base salary of £20k per week.

3. Club informs Player A that on the termination of his contract, he will receive a payment of £1m into an EBT. They dont disclose this to the authorities as it wont be actioned till after his employment ends.

4. Player signs, and struggles for a year on a measly £20k a week, knowing the other £1m (his salary again) is safe for his nest egg.

Now according to the SPL, the above scenario is perfectly legal, yet has exactly the same net effect as the one they are trying to do us for.

On the basis of this, I would say the defence would have a good case that the SPLs rules are not fit for purpose and that their application thus far has proven that they are willing to accept the same net effect without punishment and that it would be discriminatory behaviour from one club to another, whilst causing both unfair reputation damage and a tangible financial damage.

I may be wrong here, but have we not allready been found guilty, and this is an appeal we're waiting to hear the outcome of?

[Spectre 1,663]

I may be wrong here, but have we not allready been found guilty, and this is an appeal we're waiting to hear the outcome of?

We've been issued with a tax bill and we're disputing it, provided you're talking about the tax tribunal there will only be an outcome of decision upheld or appeal allowed (or allowed in part) no guilt or innocence, don't expect the media to report it like that though.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,510]

We've been issued with a tax bill and we're disputing it, provided you're talking about the tax tribunal there we only be an outcome of decision upheld or appeal allowed (or allowed in part) no guilt or innocence, didn't expect the media to report it like that though.

What you mean this is all just about tax?

I thought we were getting charged with eating babies!

[NamibianBear 1,851]

What you mean this is all just about tax?

I thought we were getting charged with eating babies!

Not yet but soon probably