Dave King statement on "Big tax case"

[ps95v7 387]

Did Linfield's PR have any input or influence on this statement? best for a long, long time.

[siddiqi_drinker 14,635]

Not a fan of King but all in all a good statement and to the point.  Nice he mentioned the benefits to the Murray Group of the EBT's.  Most umbrella companies work on a commission basis, wonder how much MIM Group, who set up the EBTs, raked in over the years?  

Hope the supporters who buy/hit the Record and BBC take on board his message about the media, would love a concerted campaign to put the Record out of business.   

[Blue Nosed Babe 20,526]

1 hour ago, 6superbarry6 said:

Yep this is what I want,fucking ruin those paedo harbouring bastards 

Given there are court cases, we do not want to jeopardise them. Wait till after them and any inquiry then it can be open season.

[Blue Nosed Babe 20,526]

25 minutes ago, JCDBigBear said:

The SPL inquiry settled the matter no matter what the eventual outcome of the HMRC appeal(s) and that was agreed to by the SPL lawyer who is also the Tims lawyer.

The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC.

That was and is the end of the matter (or should be).  If the SPFL is just the SPL with a new name then nothing has changed.  If the SPFL is a new separate entity then it has nothing to do with them.

It has taken 7 years to resolve the BTC and we cannot come to any arrangement with HMRC because Whyte deliberately got us into administration and oldco has now folded.  The BTC did not put us into admin that was Whyte.

If I recall LNS savaged said lawyer too...

[DennyBlueNose 652]

Very good statement, hopefully put those beasts in their place, nothing more than a few inconvenient truths and the dhims will be seething. The more they rabbit on now the more of a cunt they look. 

[scouseblue 145]

Just what was needed , unexpected and well said . 

[KingKirk 25,602]

47 minutes ago, JCDBigBear said:

The SPL inquiry settled the matter no matter what the eventual outcome of the HMRC appeal(s) and that was agreed to by the SPL lawyer who is also the Tims lawyer.

The SPL presented no argument to challenge the decision of the majority of the Tax Tribunal and Mr McKenzie stated expressly that for all purposes of this Commission’s Inquiry and Determination the SPL accepted that decision as it stood, without regard to any possible appeal by HMRC.

That was and is the end of the matter (or should be).  If the SPFL is just the SPL with a new name then nothing has changed.  If the SPFL is a new separate entity then it has nothing to do with them.

It has taken 7 years to resolve the BTC and we cannot come to any arrangement with HMRC because Whyte deliberately got us into administration and oldco has now folded.  The BTC did not put us into admin that was Whyte.

100% bang on bud should pin this post. Its the very reason nothing will happen once the bluster dies that'll be that

[Brubear 2,905]

The key thing for me is we gave £47m in loans over 10 years. If we had paid that as salary we would have to have paid around double that so the recipients got the same cash (after 40% tax) and we as a club had paid employers NI at c. 11%.

So lets assume it would have cost us an extra £50m but not all of this was to playing staff so lets say even £40m was to players, that is an extra £4m per year. At that time we had a turnover around £60m per annum so there is absolutely no way anyone could argue without some degree of challenge that Rangers could not have afforded these players even if paying these sums as salary. Any decision that we couldn't have done would have to be conjecture and to suggest title stripping on that basis  is just wrong. There is an assumption that Lord Nimmo Smith's opinion was based on EBT not being deemed tax avoidance at the time he gave his opinion and that this has changed, but it is quite possible he took into account the materiality of the financial benefit derived from them when making his assessment.  Would be good if he could clarify the basis of his opinion but that is unlikely to happen.

On the grounds we only gained around $4m per year I am sure the board wish they hadn't gone down that route when you consider the dramatic effect it has had on the last 5 years, and we look like we are still suffering from it. 

 

[Reformation Bear 6,453]

1 hour ago, Bad Robot said:

The sfa have left it open with the words 'at this time' so DK as almost got this right and needs to address this and get it amended ?

Yes they did.   My guess (optimistically) is this was just a precaution added to their statement in case something fundamental happened to cause them to want to think again.   An SPFL representation for instance that the SFA felt it could not ignore or dismiss without further ado.  Whether the SPFL chooses to get opportunistic under pressure from the agitator club and others is another matter.    

[Tenerife Bear 1,748]

He's good at these kind of statements. 

[The Beast 9,182]

51 minutes ago, siddiqi_drinker said:

Not a fan of King but all in all a good statement and to the point.  Nice he mentioned the benefits to the Murray Group of the EBT's.  Most umbrella companies work on a commission basis, wonder how much MIM Group, who set up the EBTs, raked in over the years?  

Hope the supporters who buy/hit the Record and BBC take on board his message about the media, would love a concerted campaign to put the Record out of business.   

I agree, kind of.

It is refreshing to hear any of our board have a pop at our enemies: the taigs and the tabloid media being two of them. 

But....

I think he could have went even further, he could have mentioned all the occasions they have tried to subvert "sporting integrity" with their own Machiavellian antics eg Phil O'Donnell. He could have alluded to at least, the paedophile cover up and pay offs. That's the one thing they have no answer to and they are shiting themselves as to what it might eventually uncover.

As for the media, why not name these publications. Why not say for example "Rangers fans should not buy the Daily Record" if he was so explicit then that would have a material impact on that publication's sales.

All in all, I'm glad he's said this but it's too little too late.

[Brubear 2,905]

8 minutes ago, The Beast said:

I agree, kind of.

It is refreshing to hear any of our board have a pop at our enemies: the taigs and the tabloid media being two of them. 

But....

I think he could have went even further, he could have mentioned all the occasions they have tried to subvert "sporting integrity" with their own Machiavellian antics eg Phil O'Donnell. He could have alluded to at least, the paedophile cover up and pay offs. That's the one thing they have no answer to and they are shiting themselves as to what it might eventually uncover.

As for the media, why not name these publications. Why not say for example "Rangers fans should not buy the Daily Record" if he was so explicit then that would have a material impact on that publication's sales.

All in all, I'm glad he's said this but it's too little too late.

I think that would have left us open to accusations of trying to point score at the expense of a player's death and victims of sex crimes. That would have opened the door to us being the bad guys again.

[Grundy 731]

Agree with The Beast it was good to hear King coming out talking about our enemies but suspect there are legal reasons as to why he didn't name names, other than the mhanks.  It may also be a subtle message that he's keeping his powder dry meantime.

[The Beast 9,182]

1 minute ago, Brubear said:

I think that would have left us open to accusations of trying to point score at the expense of a player's death and victims of sex crimes. That would have opened the door to us being the bad guys again.

Understand but what exactly do we have to lose at this point?

[Sweetheart 8,458]

2 minutes ago, Grundy said:

Agree with The Beast it was good to hear King coming out talking about our enemies but suspect there are legal reasons as to why he didn't name names, other than the mhanks.  It may also be a subtle message that he's keeping his powder dry meantime.

Do you mean DK will stop Liewells power play on being leader of the SFA?

[plumbGER 24,518]

1 minute ago, Sweetheart said:

Do you mean DK will stop Liewells power play on being leader of the SFA?

You mean he's not already?

[Rosebery1872 78]

Nice one Dave the rabid cunts will be steaming

[Grundy 731]

No , wasn't even thinking about that to be honest, just that King's next statement ( if required) might be a bit more hard hitting.

[dan_ger 1,454]

Really good statement.

I wish DK was as good as this when it came to insisting on his choice of managers. Instead of listening to the rest of the board. 

[The Beast 9,182]

1 minute ago, dan_ger said:

Really good statement.

I wish DK was as good as this when it came to insisting on his choice of managers. Instead of listening to the rest of the board. 

It wasn't rocket science mate, it was probably the most important managerial appointment in our history. There was no room for risk.

King and his board fucked it up. End of story.

[JCDBigBear 10,809]

24 minutes ago, Brubear said:

The key thing for me is we gave £47m in loans over 10 years. If we had paid that as salary we would have to have paid around double that so the recipients got the same cash (after 40% tax) and we as a club had paid employers NI at c. 11%.

So lets assume it would have cost us an extra £50m but not all of this was to playing staff so lets say even £40m was to players, that is an extra £4m per year. At that time we had a turnover around £60m per annum so there is absolutely no way anyone could argue without some degree of challenge that Rangers could not have afforded these players even if paying these sums as salary. Any decision that we couldn't have done would have to be conjecture and to suggest title stripping on that basis  is just wrong. There is an assumption that Lord Nimmo Smith's opinion was based on EBT not being deemed tax avoidance at the time he gave his opinion and that this has changed, but it is quite possible he took into account the materiality of the financial benefit derived from them when making his assessment.  Would be good if he could clarify the basis of his opinion but that is unlikely to happen.

On the grounds we only gained around $4m per year I am sure the board wish they hadn't gone down that route when you consider the dramatic effect it has had on the last 5 years, and we look like we are still suffering from it. 

 

Actually the amount of tax saved by the employees (including the players) was only approx £19.1 million over 10 years.  Adding NICs would add approx £4 million I believe.   The Nimmo Smith inquiry document was very detailed.  

The EBT scheme was a clear case of tax avoidance and it was definitely not the (only) other alternative of tax evasion.  Tax evasion is a criminal offence and at all times in claims and appeals it has been stressed that this was not a case of tax evasion.  Nobody has or will be charged with tax evasion.   The total of the HMRC claim on average was only some £2.3 million per annum.   I would point out that the biggest recipient of cash from the EBT scheme was David Murray and that was by a considerable margin.

[Sweetheart 8,458]

8 minutes ago, plumbGER said:

You mean he's not already?

Being president will give him influence on who is hired and fired

[Bad Robot 21,138]

8 minutes ago, JCDBigBear said:

Actually the amount of tax saved by the employees (including the players) was only approx £19.1 million over 10 years.  Adding NICs would add approx £4 million I believe.   The Nimmo Smith inquiry document was very detailed.  

The EBT scheme was a clear case of tax avoidance and it was definitely not the (only) other alternative of tax evasion.  Tax evasion is a criminal offence and at all times in claims and appeals it has been stressed that this was not a case of tax evasion.  Nobody has or will be charged with tax evasion.   The total of the HMRC claim on average was only some £2.3 million per annum.   I would point out that the biggest recipient of cash from the EBT scheme was David Murray and that was by a considerable margin.

Do you have a guesstimate on how much tax and NI and and other govt taxes we were paying per year at that time?

[Ryju84 3,170]

45 minutes ago, Brubear said:

The key thing for me is we gave £47m in loans over 10 years. If we had paid that as salary we would have to have paid around double that so the recipients got the same cash (after 40% tax) and we as a club had paid employers NI at c. 11%.

So lets assume it would have cost us an extra £50m but not all of this was to playing staff so lets say even £40m was to players, that is an extra £4m per year. At that time we had a turnover around £60m per annum so there is absolutely no way anyone could argue without some degree of challenge that Rangers could not have afforded these players even if paying these sums as salary. Any decision that we couldn't have done would have to be conjecture and to suggest title stripping on that basis  is just wrong. There is an assumption that Lord Nimmo Smith's opinion was based on EBT not being deemed tax avoidance at the time he gave his opinion and that this has changed, but it is quite possible he took into account the materiality of the financial benefit derived from them when making his assessment.  Would be good if he could clarify the basis of his opinion but that is unlikely to happen.

On the grounds we only gained around $4m per year I am sure the board wish they hadn't gone down that route when you consider the dramatic effect it has had on the last 5 years, and we look like we are still suffering from it. 

 

With that amount of knowledge of Rangers finances you could actually pass for being a taig 

[plumbGER 24,518]

6 minutes ago, Sweetheart said:

Being president will give him influence on who is hired and fired

He already has that influence imo