SPFL are set not to reopen EBT case

[Leeds_Bear 8,110]

12 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

I think that letters fucking disgraceful to be honest 

we can't take away titles so we are going to have a review and find out why we couldn't - the SPFL are confirming that they wanted to 

Agreed, it does suggest they wanted to punish further but couldn't and want to know why. It's simple really though, because it has nothing to do with the actual football played on the pitch. If every club in the league was going to be punished for mismanagement of their finances then the league would be non-existent. 

Not to mention the fact they shot themselves in the foot by calling the LNS review before there had ever been an outcome to the EBT case, in their hasten to destroy us they hogtied their own ability to achieve exactly what they wanted.

 

[eskbankloyal 19,446]

5 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

I think that letters fucking disgraceful to be honest 

we can't take away titles so we are going to have a review and find out why we couldn't - the SPFL are confirming that they wanted to 

It was never in any doubt they wanted to, and still do. The lawyers full judgement has been posted on the SPFL statement basically confirming that the SPFL have tried every avenue to find a rule that would allow title stripping but haven't been able to find one.

In fact the lawyer concludes that no rules in relation to unpaid tax were broken by Rangers given the wording of the rules

[dougie76 15,359]

1 minute ago, K.A.I said:

I think that letters fucking disgraceful to be honest 

we can't take away titles so we are going to have a review and find out why we couldn't - the SPFL are confirming that they wanted to 

It's a letter addressed to all the cunts that wanted us dead saying we tried our best lads but heads will roll, l wounder who they will pick as a scapegoat for this

[Ferris Bueller 1,569]

1 minute ago, RDFM said:

 

Serious meltdowns happening across the globe at the moment!

[cushynumber 25,178]

21 minutes ago, kelvd1873 said:

So are we expecting bad news from an independent review now.... a few months down the track the SPFL announce that after consideration of an indecent review we will strip rangers of titles???

no. they will review their processes. Thats it.

[Malkster 4,890]

1 minute ago, Leeds_Bear said:

Agreed, it does suggest they wanted to punish further but couldn't and want to know why. It's simple really though, because it has nothing to do with the actual football played on the pitch. If every club in the league was going to be punished for mismanagement of their finances then the league would be non-existent. 

Not to mention the fact they shot themselves in the foot by calling the LNS review before there had ever been an outcome to the EBT case, in their hasting to destroy us they hogtied their own ability to achieve exactly what they wanted.

 

haters gonna hate

[one55 1,510]

it basically sounds like "we really desperately would love to further punish rangers but we've can't do anything legally". at least that's my impression. they know if they try anything then the club could possibly take them to the cleaners. so all they can do is review the whole situation and make sure it doesn't happen again. no doubt we'll see new rules put in place in the future.

GIRFUY :) 

[markem 7,285]

In short - get the pop corn on lads 

https://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-press-release-84/

The SPFL Board today announced, following legal advice from eminent Senior Counsel, Gerry Moynihan Q.C., that there will be no further disciplinary proceedings taken by the SPFL connected with the use by Rangers of EBTs and other tax schemes.

The SPFL

Board further announced that it supports the calls that have been made for an independent review concerning the way in which Scottish football’s authorities have dealt with non-payment of tax by clubs, have applied their rules and regulations, and the sufficiency of changes made to their rules and regulations in this area over the last few years.

The SPFL Board of directors has considered carefully the judgement of the Supreme Court in the unsuccessful appeal by the former Rangers Football Club PLC (in liquidation) ("Rangers OldCo") against the decision of the Inner House of the Court of Session finding that OldCo acted unlawfully in failing to deduct and pay over to HMRC, PAYE income tax, from payments made by it to EBTs for many of its registered players.

Gerry Moynihan Q.C. has confirmed that:- (i) the breaches of Scottish FA and SPL Rules and Regulations arising from the failure of Rangers OldCo to make the required notifications in relation to registrations and contract disclosure requirements are now closed and cannot be re-opened by the SPFL nor can the Commission or a new Commission now impose further or different sanctions. The SPFL has no power in law to re-open these issues and the Commission has no power in law, assuming it wished to do so, to modify or supplement the sanction previously imposed;

(ii) there were not and are not in the SPL/SPFL Rules and Regulations any other provisions which can be or could have been pursued in relation to the failures of Rangers Oldco to make payments of PAYE tax to HMRC in relation to its employees who benefited from EBTs; and

(iii) there were not and are not in the SPL/SPFL Rules and Regulations any other provisions which can be or could have been pursued in relation to any alleged damaging effects on the reputation of the game resulting from any acts and/or omissions of Rangers OldCo in relation to the failure to deduct and pay over PAYE tax.

In short, Senior Counsel has advised that there are no disciplinary proceedings, beyond those already taken and concluded before the Lord Nimmo Smith Commission, which were at any time or are now open to the SPL and/or SPFL in relation to the failure of Rangers OldCo and/or its officers to deduct and pay over PAYE which Rangers OldCo was obligated to deduct and pay over but which it failed so to do.

Since 2010, the SPFL has brought in a number of rule changes dealing with non-payment of tax.  These were further bolstered at Monday’s SPFL Annual General Meeting.

The detailed advice given by Gerry Moynihan Q.C. to the board of directors of the SPFL as regards the options, if any, open to the SPFL in relation to further disciplinary action by the SPL/SPFL, is provided.

Ralph Topping, independent non-executive Chairman of the SPFL, commented: “The Board of the SPFL has noted the calls that have been made for an independent review and report concerning the way in which Scottish football’s authorities have dealt with non-payment of tax by clubs, application of their rules and regulations and the sufficiency of changes made to their rules and regulations in this area over the last few years.

“The Board of the SPFL supports those calls for such an independent review and will seek to facilitate such review and the publication of its report with and to the Scottish FA. The SPFL will seek to agree terms of reference with the Scottish FA and the identification of appropriate independent reviewers.”

Advice of Gerry Moynihan Q.C., Senior Counsel

Summary

Given the complexity of the questions it may help if I begin with a short summary.
 

My advice is that neither the SPL nor the SPFL can take any further disciplinary action against Oldco, Newco or Rangers (the club) in respect of the events that culminated in the liquidation of Oldco.
 

Several possible complaints have been canvassed and I will address them one by one.
 

The first possible complaint relates to failure to disclose the full range of payments when players were registered. That complaint was ‘prosecuted’ before the LNS Commission. The decision of the Commission was subject to certain limitations. Principally, it proceeded on the assumption that the EBT scheme was lawful. Secondly, there has been some suggestion that the Commission had an incomplete understanding of the full range of undisclosed payments (though this has not been demonstrated). Notwithstanding these limitations, it is now too late to appeal the decision of the LNS Commission; and, applying the general principle of finality in litigation, it is not possible for the SPFL to bring a new or second complaint in respect of essentially the same matter.  
 

The second possibility relates to non-payment of tax. The SPFL now has rules requiring tax to be paid when ‘due’. Those rules were first introduced after Oldco ceased to member of the SPL. The Rules define the date when a formally contested tax liability is considered to fall ‘due’: it falls due when the tax dispute is resolved. That day will only come when the Supreme Court announces its decision. Assuming that the Supreme Court holds that there is a tax liability in respect of the EBT scheme that will be a liability of Oldco (not the club under the current ownership of Newco). There can be no complaint by the SPFL against Oldco because that company is not a member. I have been asked whether it would be possible to bring a complaint against the club on the basis that the SPFL Rules can be construed as referring to any tax due in respect of the activities of a club, even by a past owner. While the point is not entirely free from doubt it is my opinion that the Rules do not apply to tax due by former owners and, therefore, it would not be possible to bring a complaint against Rangers (and Newco) in respect of any failure by Oldco to pay tax.  
 

Even if the SPFL Rules cover any tax due in respect of a club’s affairs by former owners, I see no reasonable basis for disciplinary action. A breach of the tax rules leads to a specific sanction, a transfer embargo until the tax is paid. This tax will not be paid. An indefinite transfer embargo would be unreasonable and even an embargo for a restricted period cannot to my mind be justified.
 

The final option would be to consider the whole affair (non-disclosure of the payments and non-payment of any tax due) as conduct that brought the game in to disrepute. That cannot be pursued by the SPL or SPFL. The Rules of the SPL and SPFL do not contain such a disciplinary offence and, therefore, there can be no charge brought by the SPL or SPFL on that basis. 

Read more at https://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-press-release-84/#T7Dwlcoj2WLhKdBg.99

[STEPPS BOY 73,923]

10 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

I think that letters fucking disgraceful to be honest 

we can't take away titles so we are going to have a review and find out why we couldn't - the SPFL are confirming that they wanted to 

Even better..

 

fuck them..

 

 

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

Hey can't we all just move on now as one, build bridges and do what's best for Scottish football as a whole? ?

If not,..

 

 

 

Roon ye ya shower of bheggar and snp loving grunts ?

[K.A.I 36,183]

It's funny though clocking the lawyers name they even hired the biggest feniany sounding guy to help them take our titles 

[Junior Soprano 22,428]

I find this hilarious if I'm honest.

[SeparateEntityMyArse 53,725]

Whats the odds Senior Counsel, Gerry Moynihan Q.C has left the country having boarded up all his house windows in anticipation of the lynch mob.

[Sparkle 53,590]

3 minutes ago, markem said:

I have been asked whether it would be possible to bring a complaint against the club on the basis that the SPFL Rules can be construed as referring to any tax due in respect of the activities of a club, even by a past owner. While the point is not entirely free from doubt it is my opinion that the Rules do not apply to tax due by former owners and, therefore, it would not be possible to bring a complaint against Rangers (and Newco) in respect of any failure by Oldco to pay tax.  

I wonder who asked that question?

[RFC55 108,937]

Gerry Moynihan Q.C. has confirmed that:- (i) the breaches of Scottish FA and SPL Rules and Regulations arising from the failure of Rangers OldCo to make the required notifications in relation to registrations and contract disclosure requirements are now closed and cannot be re-opened by the SPFL nor can the Commission or a new Commission now impose further or different sanctions. The SPFL has no power in law to re-open these issues and the Commission has no power in law, assuming it wished to do so, to modify or supplement the sanction previously imposed;

 

That must have hurt him

 

[Paisley Blue Loyal 11,178]

3 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

It's funny though clocking the lawyers name they even hired the biggest feniany sounding guy to help them take our titles 

Was just thinking exactly the same thing bud, What a hammer blow that is to the haters ???

[Gandalf the Blue 1,384]

Sounds like the SPFL tried everything they could to pin something on us. From a vague 'bringing the game into disrepute' charge to trying to say the sins of oldco are the problems of newco now.

Roon ye!

[BUILDMYGALLOWS1986 413]

[cushynumber 25,178]

So in summary:

 

1. The LNS ruling is final

2. you cant charge new owners for past owners indiscretions

3.  "we could charge Rangers with bringing the game into disrepute, but.... er... we dont actually have that as an offence, so there is fuck all to actually charge them with" 

 

 

 

so we are going to have a review into our processes.

 

 

 

 

case closed

[one55 1,510]

i like how they emphasised that we are the same club :) 

i can almost hear the sound of thousands of mhanky cunts crying.

[STEPPS BOY 73,923]

3 minutes ago, Sportingintegritymyarse said:

Whats the odds Senior Counsel, Gerry Moynihan Q.C has left the country having boarded up all his house windows in anticipation of the lynch mob.

Hearing he's headed down to Sheffield early..

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

4 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

It's funny though clocking the lawyers name they even hired the biggest feniany sounding guy to help them take our titles 

Gerry fucking Moynihan. ??

You couldn't make this shit up. 

[cushynumber 25,178]

6 minutes ago, K.A.I said:

It's funny though clocking the lawyers name they even hired the biggest feniany sounding guy to help them take our titles 

or to help appease the unwashed when they knew there was no way forward.

[Misteral 2,932]

The haters have clearly tried here and failed. Fuck them. 

[Courtyard Bear 41,357]

1 minute ago, cushynumber said:

So in summary:

 

1. The LNS ruling is final

2. you cant charge new owners for past owners indiscretions

3.  "we could charge Rangers with bringing the game into disrepute, but.... er... we dont actually have that as an offence, so there is fuck all to actually charge them with" 

 

 

 

so we are going to have a review into our processes.

 

 

 

 

case closed

I get the feeling they would love to crucify us but it would open a huge can of worms regarding other clubs they don't want to harm.