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

[cushynumber 25,178]

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?????

SkiBunny, there was no grey area until the SPL decided to go and look for one and made a point of finding one where none existed. Its all bollocks.

[five stars 1,739]

If there was even the slightest chance of winning the SPL would have appealled. Having already spent est. 500,000 and having tried to strip titles in the five party agreement LNS findings were highly embarressing for them. The reason they didnt appeal was they had no chance of winning.

[mick1271 521]

Why are we still talking about this!!

If we don't ,someone might start a poll about it

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

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

if anyone gave an honest answer it would be because we knew it was a tax avoidance scheme, and while 'legal' one tends not to shout to much about these things ( although that all came back to bite us in the arse ! )

[Thinker 31]

if anyone gave an honest answer it would be because we knew it was a tax avoidance scheme, and while 'legal' one tends not to shout to much about these things ( although that all came back to bite us in the arse ! )

That's one of the two main reasons (as far as I can figure out).

In his report, LNS suggests that the motivation for not handing in the EBT paperwork was at least partially that the board wanted to maintain the tax advantages that they conferred. i.e. They didn't want to draw attention to it because if they did either a): the tax authorities would have closed the legal loopholes that EBTs exploited and knocked the whole scheme on the head or b): our competitor clubs would have copied the idea and we'd have lost the edge that it gave us.

It's worth mentioning that LNS declared that the non-disclosure was deliberate but not dishonest. That is to say, in his opinion the board genuinely didn't believe that they were obliged, under the disclosure rules, to hand in paperwork relating to loans. What he criticises them for is not checking whether they were correct to assume that.

Basically he's insinuating that they didn't check because they didn't want to hear an answer they didn't like. Don't see how he can prove that though really.

[JCDBigBear 10,865]

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.

This is exactly the case. I'm in the same frame of mind that Nimmo Smith got the verdict wrong. We were entirely innocent of dual contracts.

The payments to the EBT fund were shown in the accounts as they would require to be. The loans paid out from the EBT fund could not and should not be considered contractual as such payments were paid out only at the discretion of the trustees who were independent from RFC and MIH. In theory and in practice, the trustees could have refused such loans. Under no circumstances can a loan be considered a contractual payment, no matter what Nimmo Smith came up with. What has to be borne in mind is that this SPL Commission was not a legal entity, it was basically an independent review on behalf of the SPL. They were looking at the issue on behalf of the SPL to the remit of the SPL. The FTTT was however a legal revue and that decision vindicated the EBT scheme as being non-contractual.

The SPL and SFA received our accounts every year and that is a pointless excercise if they don't actually look at them because the EBT scheme is clearly identified in all 10 years accounts.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

That's one of the two main reasons (as far as I can figure out).

In his report, LNS suggests that the motivation for not handing in the EBT paperwork was at least partially that the board wanted to maintain the tax advantages that they conferred. i.e. They didn't want to draw attention to it because if they did either a): the tax authorities would have closed the legal loopholes that EBTs exploited and knocked the whole scheme on the head or b): our competitor clubs would have copied the idea and we'd have lost the edge that it gave us.

It's worth mentioning that LNS declared that the non-disclosure was deliberate but not dishonest. That is to say, in his opinion the board genuinely didn't believe that they were obliged, under the disclosure rules, to hand in paperwork relating to loans. What he criticises them for is not checking whether they were correct to assume that.

Basically he's insinuating that they didn't check because they didn't want to hear an answer they didn't like. Don't see how he can prove that though really.

Agreed - and the bit we got wrong - not checking, thus not declaring we were found guilty on - and fined - should be the end of it but ....

[GOAT 30,449]

because wur cheats!

[Thermopylae 15,287]

if anyone gave an honest answer it would be because we knew it was a tax avoidance scheme, and while 'legal' one tends not to shout to much about these things ( although that all came back to bite us in the arse ! )

Is there anybody with a lot of money who doesn't pay as little tax as possible?

[boss 1,941]

For the same reason we didn't disclose SDM's collar size - we didn't have to.

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

Is there anybody with a lot of money who doesn't pay as little tax as possible?

Yes (but that is a different discussion) - you asked why we didn't - I have given a view on why we wouldn't.

[crabbit bear 139]

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

Yes please let's do, because l've been waiting this past year to find someone who knows what their talking about to tell every one, but unfortunately, l'm still waiting. So as soon as you find out you can let us all know smartass.

[reddrock 107]

Why are we still talking about this!!

Because its better than talking about 'that' :O)

[Edmiston Drive 3,846]

Because its better than talking about 'that' :O)

So your a this man then

[Brubear 2,953]

_{The fact is that Rangers paid funds into a trust fund. It was then at the discretion of the trustees if they used these funds to make loans to certain employees of Rangers. It was also at the discretion of the trustees if any interest was charged on these loans and the term, ie date they would be repaid. the fact the trustees set the interest rate a zero and the term as indefinite was up to them.}

_{Rangers did not make any payments direct to the players and in fact had no control over what players received what loans, that was up to the trustees. That is basically how EBTs work.}

_{Rangers took the view that as they did not make payments direct to the players they did not need to declare them to the SPL/SFA., however as they were making payments into a trust fund this needed to be declared in their accounts, which they duly did. LNS has actually support that view except in the small number of instances where the FTTT declared they were payments to the players (I think about 5 cases for a few hundred grand) that in these cases Rangers should have declared these to the SPL/SFA. Hence the fine. However, considering the small number of instances and the fact that under the SFAs own rules this did not invalidate the registration of the players Rangers were not guilty of playing unregistered players. Also the fact the EBTs were legal LNS also judged that Rangers did not gain an ufair advantage over other clubs as EBTs were available to all clubs if they had chose to use them.}

_{Celtic used 1 and on the same logic as above would not be guilty in the eyes of tax legistration or in have fielded an unregistered player. They did however have 1 case of not declaring the EBT to the SPL/SFA and on that basis are due a fine. Lets say £250k for our 5 indiscretons so a fine of £50k is all Celtic could reasonably expect, but it won't happen.}

[Thermopylae 15,287]

Yes (but that is a different discussion) - you asked why we didn't - I have given a view on why we wouldn't.

It's just odd given that it's been disected to death in public for months now that no one actually involved with it has ever came out and gave their side of things

[Bluepeter9 5,167]

It's just odd given that it's been disected to death in public for months now that no one actually involved with it has ever came out and gave their side of things

I agree but I suspect only 2 could Campbell ogilvie - who hides behind his role in the sfa and David Murray - who just hides!