Does anyone know why we didn't declare the EBTs to the SPL?

[Thermopylae 15,287]

Ok it was in the annual accounts but why were they not spelled out to the SPL? A guy asked this question on clyde last night and the answer he got from Rodger Baillie was "people can answer this question but they just choose not to on a public forum" which I found a bit strange

[crabbit bear 139]

I'm not 100% sure, but l think it was because if they declared them they became guaranteed earnings, and they would have been liable to tax, which would have defeated the purpose of having them in the first place.

[Thermopylae 15,287]

Ahh right that makes sense

[ForeverBlue_Since91 2,895]

The same reason why every club that uses ebts don't declare them. Probably the same reason ra sellcik never declared theres for there players aswell.

[Redwhiteandblue 3,330]

I'm not 100% sure, but l think it was because if they declared them they became guaranteed earnings, and they would have been liable to tax, which would have defeated the purpose of having them in the first place.

This is exactly it. Was in the 42 page report.

Declaring them to the SPL would've made them contractual, defeating the purpose of the ebt's.

[Thermopylae 15,287]

The same reason why every club that uses ebts declare them. Probably the same reason ra sellcik never declared theres for there players aswell.

Yes but they can do whatever they want without fear of sanction

[KingKirk 25,812]

No need to as we didn't gain any benefits. Even tho some say otherwise. Thats why their was a fine handed out that will never be paid. My brother also named LNS told me at band practice tonight. He is good at this stuff We just call him Brother Smith

[JohnHardie 1,405]

Wee Tracey the temp fucked off early that day.

[bluepeter 5,627]

I'm not 100% sure, but l think it was because if they declared them they became guaranteed earnings, and they would have been liable to tax, which would have defeated the purpose of having them in the first place.

This

[GIJoe 98]

I'm not 100% sure, but l think it was because if they declared them they became guaranteed earnings, and they would have been liable to tax, which would have defeated the purpose of having them in the first place.

Let's please get an answer from somebody who knows what he's talking about.

[JohnHardie 1,405]

EBT's were declared every year.

[dummiesoot 16,116]

We did not declare them because they can only be optional and discretionary, in essence it was up to the employee if they used the facility.

The 'side letter' would not be presented as the rule was contractual payments had to be presented. I am still trying to work out why we got the fine in the first place.

[SkiBunny 441]

Would be good to get a definite answer to this.

Dare I say it but if by declaring the EBT's to SPL we would have to have paid a lot more money then it's fair to say we wouldn't have been able to afford all our players and therefore did gain a sporting advantage by hiding the EBTs.

If it would have made no difference financially whether SPL were informed or not then we woukd've signed all the playees anyway and there is absolutely no case for a sporting advantage.

[mick1271 521]

Would be good to get a definite answer to this.

Dare I say it but if by declaring the EBT's to SPL we would have to have paid a lot more money then it's fair to say we wouldn't have been able to afford all our players and therefore did gain a sporting advantage by hiding the EBTs.

If it would have made no difference financially whether SPL were informed or not then we woukd've signed all the playees anyway and there is absolutely no case for a sporting advantage.

The PLAYERS saved paying tax on the ebt's .we gained no sporting advantage by not officially declaring the ebts to the sfa ( the players would have been correctly registered either way). iirc hmrc were claiming approx 10 million in unpaid tax over 10 years (after interest and fines ,it rocketed to the estimated 16/45/80 million )

When paying 2/3 million regularly on players ,to say we couldn't afford another million a year is laughable .

[nimrod 62]

I think it's fair to say that Murray was sailing close to the wind between what was hunky dory with these EBTs and what was beyond the scope.

However he was doing no worse than what thousands of businesses do every day in trying to minimise tax liability.

What I find sinister in all this is the witch hunt in Rangers particular case. The attitude, that we are guilty of the most heinous of crimes and only the severest punishment is appropriate, is indicative of a very sad culture pervading Scotland.

The hounding of the club has been totally unjustified. They have used the oldco/newco arguments entirely to suit an agenda where they can down Rangers by taking the worst aspect of either side of the coin and applying it to us.

They were quite happy for us to be victimised by HMRC. They were quite happy for the 'independent' commission to sit in judgement. Now that the FTTT & LNS have not delivered what they want to hear they are up in arms.

I am well enjoying their discomfort and frustration.

[five stars 1,739]

Ebts payments were not illegal and breached NO football regulations. Any club how wished could have used them and many did including the likes of seltic, arsenal etc.LNS judged that we didnt provide enough information on the ebts, hence the fine.

[reddrock 107]

Ok it was in the annual accounts but why were they not spelled out to the SPL? A guy asked this question on clyde last night and the answer he got from Rodger Baillie was "people can answer this question but they just choose not to on a public forum" which I found a bit strange

They were declared , its just some of the paperwork submitted was either incorrectly completed or not completed , which itself is the reason we were punished , if you will with a fine against oldco for incorrect administration .

[Moraybluenose 99]

The reason is that the EBTs were not payments which was agreed in court at the HMRC. Tax case. However LNS took a totally different view that this was payment. So we have two legal rulings contradicting each other. you can see why HMRC are looking to appeal!

[scarkev 3,540]

I'm not 100% sure, but l think it was because if they declared them they became guaranteed earnings, and they would have been liable to tax, which would have defeated the purpose of having them in the first place.

I'm not sure that's right mate...my understanding is we did declare the use of EBT's in our accounts and both the SPL and Uefa were aware of the scheme...what we didn't do was pass on/submit the 'side letter' ie the instruction given to the players as to how to access this scheme....now it seems to me based on the fact only a handful of players who received EBT's and these side letters were deemed to be in the wrong, that suggests we did pass on 'side letters' for the other players....

The thing that annoys me most when I listen to Clyde is they never correct anyone, that same caller the OP is mentioning, questioned if players would have came to us without EBT's....delacunt as usual "that's the million dollar question"....erm no it's not, it's irrelevant EBT's were and are legal....

I really do wonder if Celtic did everything above board with every player they have signed nakamura - image rights, keane - dermis Desmond...I am 100% convinced every club at some stage will be guilty of admin errors, though it seems we are the only ones any one is interested in investigating.

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Why are we still talking about this!!

[five stars 1,739]

There is nothing wrong with making payments to player in a tax effective way. If it saves the club money thats ok. There is no fair play rule which says you cannot be tax efficent.There seems to be an attempt by the mhedia and haters to invent rules which dont exist, and that may work ok on the pages of a biased rag or on a phone-in show, but the problem the haters have is imaginery rules would be laughed out of court thats why LNS, much to the dismay to his employers the SPL had no option but to find us NOT GUILTY of illegal payments.

[Moraybluenose 99]

Why are we still talking about this!!

Cause QP won and we are fed up talking about singing

[Alnic3856 358]

Anyone making another fucking EBT thread on this forum I am coming to the conclusion is a mickey b****d, why else would we still be talking about this shite????

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Cause QP won and we are fed up talking about singing

Good enough reason

[SkiBunny 441]

Anyone making another fucking EBT thread on this forum I am coming to the conclusion is a mickey b****d, why else would we still be talking about this shite????

To be honest I don't understand why there's still a grey area around this whole sporting advantage crap. Players were registered properly and eligible to play, club would've afforded them regardless of EBTs being disclosed in proper manner. Why is it still such a grey area?????