How much money was actually involved

[ritchieshearercaldow 22,240]

They quote £47 million.

Was it that amount and were there only 5 players involved? (or 11)

That would mean they made over £20 mil each over the years involved

I realise this can't be right but does anyone know the actual figures involved with the players.

The tims say we had some sort of advantage but then do say the £47 million included players and staff, so the staff includes managers, executives and such, but surely they don't offer any advantage on the park

I only ask so that I can explain to those I meet who are out of the loop

[Big Al 55 9,291]

The way I understand it is there was £47m in loans through EBTs, of those, 5 were incorrectly administered. The fine was for those 5, so its small percentage of the quoted figure.

The EBTs themselves were all legal, at that time, as per FTTT ruling therefore there was no sporting advantage since the scheme was open to all clubs.

But heh I'm a software engineer not a lawyer

[ger50champ 300]

Why do we care what the beggars say on this stuff .Decisions been made and they can't do fuck all now .They have a lifetimes habit of lying and fabricating stuff so we had to guess there would be fall out from decision going our way .I don't give a flying fuck what Lemon says because he hates us but its reciprocated by me x1000000000 .I genuinely hope something terrible happens to this pond life

[barkie 201]

Just as well Celtic players and staff were not avoiding tax by investing in dodgy film companies which many of them including one a Mr Yellow Teeth invested in were ruled illegal.

No high horse statements about them of course because celtic players and staff and the chairman of a shit wee club who like sheep just like investing in films.

[KingKirk 25,767]

Put it like this were now seeing how stupid SDM was over the years weather it be to 5 or 11 players that sort of money being paid by a club in Scotland is crazy.

[barkie 201]

lots of clubs in England also used them.

[Stoorie 1,088]

47 million to a few players.

How much did the rest get?

Yea, Rangers were the best payers in world football.

You tell a lie long enough...............................

[nachothelegend 1,932]

Listen the Seville calculator was oot.

They canny even get their crowd figures right.

Always making figures up.

[scarkev 3,540]

The money "involved" is completely immaterial as it has no relevance to what we were investigated for....it could have been 47 million or 470 million, that side if it was perfectly legal...all we did wrong was we didn't submit the (side letters) to the SPL for 5 player contracts....don't let the agenda driven media sensationalise the facts.

[JCDBigBear 10,832]

The payment into the EBT scheme was approx £48m over 10 years, The actual amounts are detailed in the annual accounts which makes a mockery of the statement by the 3 stooges (sorry SPL Commission) that these amounts were undisclosed. Not only is the EBT amount detailed in each annual account but there is an explanatory note underneath. The tax which people claim should have been paid under normal circumstances would be at the top rate of 40% which is £19.1m or an average annual amount of £1.9M. We are to believe that with a plethora of players saving themselves an average aggregate total of £1.9m per year that we gained an insurmountable advantage!!! I will make note again that the players made any saving, not Rangers. There will no doubt be the argument that players wouldn't have signed without the tax-free element but that would require them to have guaranteed payments. Loan payouts from the EBT scheme were not guaranteed, they were made at the discretion of those independent trustees who had no formal connection to RFC or MIH. Just for your further information, the publicity surrounding this entire issue would have you believe that we hardly paid any tax or actual salaries to players, etc. The amount paid into the EBT scheme was only approx 14% of the total wage bill for RFC. These figures are easily verified if anyone takes the time to look through the annual accounts. Clearly the Scottish media couldn't be bothered.

I should add that there were approx 50+ players involved if I remember correctly.

[Stoorie 1,088]

I'm not going to piss about here, the agenda from these scumbags will not stop unless every Bear takes them to task over their lies.

We're very good at coming on to Rangers forums and venting our anger to our fellow fans, but we are terrible at challenging these bastards in their own world. The bloggers that try to defend the club are sometimes slated for not doing what the fans want at the specific time.

There has been a small change in the phone ins, but not enough IMO. We should now be flooding these haters and take them to task on EVERY point they try to score.

Fuck dignified silence. Get these rats out in the open and pop them off.

Time for change.

[Big Al 55 9,291]

The payment into the EBT scheme was approx £48m over 10 years, The actual amounts are detailed in the annual accounts which makes a mockery of the statement by the 3 stooges (sorry SPL Commission) that these amounts were undisclosed. Not only is the EBT amount detailed in each annual account but there is an explanatory note underneath. The tax which people claim should have been paid under normal circumstances would be at the top rate of 40% which is £19.1m or an average annual amount of £1.9M. We are to believe that with a plethora of players saving themselves an average aggregate total of £1.9m per year that we gained an insurmountable advantage!!! I will make note again that the players made any saving, not Rangers. There will no doubt be the argument that players wouldn't have signed without the tax-free element but that would require them to have guaranteed payments. Loan payouts from the EBT scheme were not guaranteed, they were made at the discretion of those independent trustees who had no formal connection to RFC or MIH. Just for your further information, the publicity surrounding this entire issue would have you believe that we hardly paid any tax or actual salaries to players, etc. The amount paid into the EBT scheme was only approx 14% of the total wage bill for RFC. These figures are easily verified if anyone takes the time to look through the annual accounts. Clearly the Scottish media couldn't be bothered.

I should add that there were approx 50+ players involved if I remember correctly.

Not so sure about that my belief is since EBTs were deemed legal there was no sporting advantage, simple mathematics would suggest to me Rangers paid less in wages as a result of the EBT scheme.

[JCDBigBear 10,832]

Not so sure about that my belief is since EBTs were deemed legal there was no sporting advantage, simple mathematics would suggest to me Rangers paid less in wages as a result of the EBT scheme.

Well that depends on your view of the situation. You could say that the EBT scheme allowed the players to save on paying some tax (certainly not all tax) or you could assert that the players only came if they could save a certain percentage of tax.

The wording in the annual accounts was

"The Rangers Employee Benefit Trust and Murray Group Management Ltd. Remuneration Trust were established to provide incentives to certain employees and other service providers."

At the end of the day, the payouts were loans paid out by the trustees (not RFC or MIH). That is irrevocable.

[Right_To_Censor 1,951]

Just as well Celtic players and staff were not avoiding tax by investing in dodgy film companies which many of them including one a Mr Yellow Teeth invested in were ruled illegal.

No high horse statements about them of course because celtic players and staff and the chairman of a shit wee club who like sheep just like investing in films.

now now caller, allegedly

[Big Al 55 9,291]

Well that depends on your view of the situation. You could say that the EBT scheme allowed the players to save on paying some tax (certainly not all tax) or you could assert that the players only came if they could save a certain percentage of tax.

The wording in the annual accounts was

"The Rangers Employee Benefit Trust and Murray Group Management Ltd. Remuneration Trust were established to provide incentives to certain employees and other service providers."

At the end of the day, the payouts were loans paid out by the trustees (not RFC or MIH). That is irrevocable.

I agree and that's the reason their was no sporting advantage, but it stands to reason that Rangers paid less in wages as a result

[72barca 1,788]

Here is a link to the LNS report.

http://www.scotprem.... 28 02 2013.pdf

This is a table from it that didn't copy properly, but the first column is the year, the second column is the wages and the third column is for the EBT contributions ( which may be players and staff ). In the document they disagree with the FTTT in that, they agree the EBT's were legal, but say that the contributions to the EBT's were not emoluments but were in fact entitled payments and as such should have been declared to the SPL/SFA rather than given to the players as side letters, since that distinction is what contravened the rules. If Murray had declared them, to the SPL/SFA, there would not have been any kangaroo court. They say that every player who had a side letter from 2001 is included, that's why the fine is so large. It is interesting to note that Harper/McCleod were looking for documents from the "old" Rangers from the beginning of March. It didn't take long for McKenzie to get rolling. I warn you, reading that document is mind-numbing.

Year to

30 June

Wages and

salaries £’000

Contributions

to EBT £’000

2000 30,160 Nil

2001 29,595 1,010

2002 28,541 5,176

2003 25,040 6,791

2004 20,587 7,252

2005 17,764 7,241

2006 16,704 9,192

2007 17,064 4,988

2008 28,207 2,291

2009 24,908 2,360

2010 23,667 1,358

[JCDBigBear 10,832]

I agree and that's the reason their was no sporting advantage, but it stands to reason that Rangers paid less in wages as a result

Again that depends on whether the players would have agreed to sign without the EBT scheme (which could not be guaranteed by RFC as it was a trust fund).

[JCDBigBear 10,832]

If the side letters were from RFC then they really should carry no weight whatsoeverregarding loan payouts from the EBT scheme. Only the trustees of the scheme could make payouts which were discretionary and not guaranteed, that is how the EBT scheme worked and why the FTTT came down in favour of RFC. How can RFC guarantee anything in a side letter for loans to be paid out by a third party? I could have written side letters for all the good it would do.

[Big Al 55 9,291]

Again that depends on whether the players would have agreed to sign without the EBT scheme (which could not be guaranteed by RFC as it was a trust fund).

No it doesn't, had they agreed to join without the EBT scheme then for them to have the same remuneration Rangers would have to outlay more.

Is you're point that without the scheme Rangers wouldn't have offered the same total runemeration and we couldn't say whether they would still have signed?

[72barca 1,788]

If the side letters were from RFC then they really should carry no weight whatsoeverregarding loan payouts from the EBT scheme. Only the trustees of the scheme could make payouts which were discretionary and not guaranteed, that is how the EBT scheme worked and why the FTTT came down in favour of RFC. How can RFC guarantee anything in a side letter for loans to be paid out by a third party? I could have written side letters for all the good it would do.

Hve a read at the report, JCD. As I read it Rangers gave the side letter as a promise to pay into the trust, then they have no further involvement. That's why LNS says that the side letters were part of a player's contract and should have been declared, even though we did not gain any advantage.

[bluepeter 5,627]

They quote £47 million.

Was it that amount and were there only 5 players involved? (or 11)

That would mean they made over £20 mil each over the years involved

I realise this can't be right but does anyone know the actual figures involved with the players.

The tims say we had some sort of advantage but then do say the £47 million included players and staff, so the staff includes managers, executives and such, but surely they don't offer any advantage on the park

I only ask so that I can explain to those I meet who are out of the loop

I think there's crossed wires about all this. The SPL (Independent) commission and the FTTT are different, and were looking at different things. The '5 players' are the ones the FTTT found problems with.

The SPL Commission investigated all the players, we should (according to their rules) have declared all the payments to the SPL, but didn't. This probably does amount to £47m, but - and I quote the judgement - "...the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules..."

There was no problem with the amounts, or us paying them through an EBT, as far as the SPL and SFA are concerned. If we had declared them, they would have signed off on them and we'd not have had this commission.

Having said that, if we'd declared them to the SPL that would mean we saw them as payments rather than loans, and tax would have been due on them. Our advice at the time was that they were loans (which has been upheld by the FTTT) so we shouldn't declare them. FTTT > SPL Commission, so we did the right thing. The SPL disagree.

So, a £250k fine or a £90trillion (or whatever) tax bill, I know which I'd go for....

[JCDBigBear 10,832]

No it doesn't, had they agreed to join without the EBT scheme then for them to have the same remuneration Rangers would have to outlay more.

Is you're point that without the scheme Rangers wouldn't have offered the same total runemeration and we couldn't say whether they would still have signed?

As I said, it depends whether the players were happy to sign for the total pre-tax sum or not. Who are we to decide if it was an additional incentive or part of the overall offer? You would need to ask the individual players. I'm not being naive about this, merely being pedantic which is what the law is.

[barkie 201]

now now caller, allegedly

Nothing allegedly about it, they like film companies

Stewert Milne for example

INGENIOUS FILM PARTNERS 2 LLP

JUBILEE FILM PARTNERSHIP LLP

CLAREMONT FILM DISTRIBUTION, LLP

[JCDBigBear 10,832]

Hve a read at the report, JCD. As I read it Rangers gave the side letter as a promise to pay into the trust, then they have no further involvement. That's why LNS says that the side letters were part of a player's contract and should have been declared, even though we did not gain any advantage.

How can RFC possibly advise the SPL that players MAY receive loans (not wages) from a trust fund depending on the goodwill of the trustees? And this is supposed to be included as part of their contracts for the SPL records. There is no guarantee of any benefit to the players unless payments (not loans) were guaranteed. Since when was a loan a benefit?

[Stoorie 1,088]

I think there's crossed wires about all this. The SPL (Independent) commission and the FTTT are different, and were looking at different things. The '5 players' are the ones the FTTT found problems with.

The SPL Commission investigated all the players, we should (according to their rules) have declared all the payments to the SPL, but didn't. This probably does amount to £47m, but - and I quote the judgement - "...the payments in this case were not themselves irregular and were not in breach of SPL or SFA Rules..."

There was no problem with the amounts, or us paying them through an EBT, as far as the SPL and SFA are concerned. If we had declared them, they would have signed off on them and we'd not have had this commission.

Having said that, if we'd declared them to the SPL that would mean we saw them as payments rather than loans, and tax would have been due on them. Our advice at the time was that they were loans (which has been upheld by the FTTT) so we shouldn't declare them. FTTT > SPL Commission, so we did the right thing. The SPL disagree.

So, a £250k fine or a £90trillion (or whatever) tax bill, I know which I'd go for....

Facts and common sense mean nothing.