The Title Stripping Inquisiton

[eejay the dj 31,964]

Here's the facts as I see it.

The SFA investigated Rangers use of EBTs ('side letters') to see if they had broken any rules as they existed when the practice took place. Rangers made no attempt to hide the use of EBTs but, still, the SFA wanted a legal view on whether a) the side letters not being part of any filed paperwork to the SFA meant a rules breach and b) if so, were the players registrations incomplete. The investigation made no attempt at looking at the legality of EBTs from a taxation standpoint as there were no rules at that time covering the question of tax avoidance. As this was the case, the SFA could move forward with their investigation BEFORE the 'big tax case' decision was made in the courts. The result of the 'side letter' investigation was that Rangers were guilty of administrative failures but those failures did not provide any sporting advantage.

Now that we have another change in direction of the 'big tax case' - someone please tell me which rules existing at the time of practice have been breached? Surely, if there were rules on the subject of tax avoidance at that time, the SFA investigation on 'side letters' should not have taken place BEFORE the court judgement(s).

Good post mate and one which is logical . Sadly the cunts are frothing at the mouth to get at us .Probably looking for some loophole to use as leverage .

[Helicopter Sundae 6,197]

I was under the impression that law could not be imposed retrospectively...

[kelvd1873 7,403]

Here's the facts as I see it.

The SFA investigated Rangers use of EBTs ('side letters') to see if they had broken any rules as they existed when the practice took place. Rangers made no attempt to hide the use of EBTs but, still, the SFA wanted a legal view on whether a) the side letters not being part of any filed paperwork to the SFA meant a rules breach and b) if so, were the players registrations incomplete. The investigation made no attempt at looking at the legality of EBTs from a taxation standpoint as there were no rules at that time covering the question of tax avoidance. As this was the case, the SFA could move forward with their investigation BEFORE the 'big tax case' decision was made in the courts. The result of the 'side letter' investigation was that Rangers were guilty of administrative failures but those failures did not provide any sporting advantage.

Now that we have another change in direction of the 'big tax case' - someone please tell me which rules existing at the time of practice have been breached? Surely, if there were rules on the subject of tax avoidance at that time, the SFA investigation on 'side letters' should not have taken place BEFORE the court judgement(s).

Great post mate, also very valid point at the end.??