Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[ballengeich]

Another issue which hasn't yet been raised is the possibility of criminal charges against "somebody". Now that the case has been settled, HMRC's options are clearer. Personally, I think they won't; the case was about establishing a precedent for other similar cases, and criminal action will be less of a priority.

I don't think there could be criminal charges about the basic operation of the scheme, but there have been stories alleging that documents were concealed or even destroyed when HMRC investigators visited the old company. That's where I think charges could be brought.

[Spike Mandela]

Don't believe for one minute that any titles will be stripped. Or that anyone at the SFA will admit they cheated.

The LNS commission reported on sporting advantage on a false premise. At the time of the commission they said that as EBT's were legal no sporting advantage was gained as any club could have used them if they so chose.

Now it has been proven unanimously in the highest court in the land that the use of EBT's were illegal.

Therefore it is clear that Rangers illegal use of EBT's gave them an unfair sporting advantage.

The SFA can't hide behind this discredited LNS judgement any more.

[Elephant Stone]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ql1-p3pvtoc

[.Sean.]

The LNS commission reported on sporting advantage on a false premise. At the time of the commission they said that as EBT's were legal no sporting advantage was gained as any club could have used them if they so chose.

Now it has been proven unanimously in the highest court in the land that the use of EBT's were illegal.

Therefore it is clear that Rangers illegal use of EBT's gave them an unfair sporting advantage.

The SFA can't hide behind this discredited LNS judgement any more.
The SFA simply HAVE to act. I expect Celtic in particular to be putting a bit of pressure on them to appease their support who'll be baying for blood and won't let this rest.

[Ozyhibby]

The LNS commission reported on sporting advantage on a false premise. At the time of the commission they said that as EBT's were legal no sporting advantage was gained as any club could have used them if they so chose.

Now it has been proven unanimously in the highest court in the land that the use of EBT's were illegal.

Therefore it is clear that Rangers illegal use of EBT's gave them an unfair sporting advantage.

The SFA can't hide behind this discredited LNS judgement any more.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170705/acdb39250938723405292f443b812b4a.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[BSEJVT]

Quite apart from the implications to the now deceased Rangers, I bet there are an awful lot of clubs up and down the country presently ****ting themselves about when HMRC will come knocking on their door and seeking recompense.

The floodgates have been opened and it will be interesting to see which other teams are caught in the coming flood.

[Blaster]

Am I the only one who would rather our club focussed on us and our future? Let others get on with the fight against rangers history

[FilipinoHibs]

Quite apart from the implications to the now deceased Rangers, I bet there are an awful lot of clubs up and down the country presently ****ting themselves about when HMRC will come knocking on their door and seeking recompense.

The floodgates have been opened and it will be interesting to see which other teams are caught in the coming flood.

Yes this very much a test case so they could after other sports clubs. They knew they would not get any money out of the Gers but EPL clubs can pay up without going bust. Probably see a fall in wages in EPL.

[Ozyhibby]

Am I the only one who would rather our club focussed on us and our future? Let others get on with the fight against rangers history

That's like being a clean cyclist in the Tour de France and saying I'm just focussing on me.
There is no point competing in a rigged race.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Spike Mandela]

Am I the only one who would rather our club focussed on us and our future? Let others get on with the fight against rangers history

I paraphrase.....

"All that is required for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing.":cb

[Lang Toun Hibs]

The LNS commission reported on sporting advantage on a false premise. At the time of the commission they said that as EBT's were legal no sporting advantage was gained as any club could have used them if they so chose.

Now it has been proven unanimously in the highest court in the land that the use of EBT's were illegal.

Therefore it is clear that Rangers illegal use of EBT's gave them an unfair sporting advantage.

The SFA can't hide behind this discredited LNS judgement any more.

I agree...rule J16 provides for a range of penalties including the withdrawal of titles previously awarded. They can't simply ignore this now because Rangers died 5 years ago. To my mind, Oldco have yet to be fully punished - there was no relegation as Rangers died. The Rangers were (generously and overly favourably in my view) welcomed back into the Scottish League but had to start from the bottom...that's no punishment for oldco. Will it make a difference? Yes, to me as a football fan, the acknowledgment that these titles have been officially withdrawn will make a difference! Supporters of the new club should vent their anger at those who took the decision, I.e. Custodians of the old club, not Scottish football or fans of other clubs....or other religions for that matter but I guess they need a bit of time to vent about last night first!

[Haymaker]

Yes this very much a test case so they could after other sports clubs. They knew they would not get any money out of the Gers but EPL clubs can pay up without going bust. Probably see a fall in wages in EPL.

EPL clubs cut deals years back.

[Smartie]

Am I the only one who would rather our club focussed on us and our future? Let others get on with the fight against rangers history


That's like being a clean cyclist in the Tour de France and saying I'm just focussing on me.
There is no point competing in a rigged race.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not all that interested in arguing about whether or not they are docked titles of the past.

I'd like some clarification though that the footballing authorities in Scotland have learned from the experience, that the current competition is fair, and that the rules on financial doping are clear, unequivocal and that the punishments for breaking the rules are enforced when clubs break them.

I'm not convinced we're there yet.

The "financial doping era" of Scottish football was a truly shameful period in its history. That doesn't change whether titles are docked or not.

I'd like to think Rod Petrie has better things to do with his time than pursue an agenda that is primarily driven by Celtic fans.

[JeMeSouviens]

The SFA simply HAVE to act. I expect Celtic in particular to be putting a bit of pressure on them to appease their support who'll be baying for blood and won't let this rest.

I think there is very little appetite among any of the clubs to revisit this, including Celtic. If anything is to be done, the pressure will have to be applied by the fans. Without pressure from top flight fans, the New Huns would've come straight into the SPL in their first season. Without pressure from lower tier fans, the New Huns would've come straight into the first division in their first season.

The SFA/SP(F)L have effectively abandoned all pretence at governance over the Hun fiasco. Any sweeping under rugs or bending rules is considered fair game if it keeps a "Rangers" in the Scottish game.

[FilipinoHibs]

EPL clubs cut deals years back.

Not according to the Financial Times. Many did not.

[southsider]

Am I the only one who would rather our club focussed on us and our future? Let others get on with the fight against rangers history

There is tax evasion and tax avoidance. One is legal the other not. Directors of a Company can be held legally responsible for the actions of their company. Died or not. Are they due VAT ? VAt Hector takes no prisoners

[CropleyWasGod]

EPL clubs cut deals years back.

This suggests that some did, while others didn't.

https://www.sportinglife.com/football/news/tax-concerns-for-english-clubs/42677

As ever, we can't know the truth unless the clubs themselves go public, or there is a similar Court case.

[Bostonhibby]

That's like being a clean cyclist in the Tour de France and saying I'm just focussing on me.
There is no point competing in a rigged race.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[emoji106]

I can do both and still have time left over. Three if you count mocking the poppy thieves.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[Spike Mandela]

I'd like to think Rod Petrie has better things to do with his time than pursue an agenda that is primarily driven by Celtic fans.

This can't be dismissed as a Rangers/Celtic thing.

Every Hibs fan and every supporter of every other top flight club put their hard earned cash into a rigged game for years. The authorities are complicit in sweeping this under the carpet.

This is THE biggest scandal in British sport in our lifetimes and people are shrugging their shoulders. I don't get it.

[FilipinoHibs]

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/englands-top-clubs-could-face-9995113

[Since90+2]

Due to the amount of money and the timescale involved I cant see how the governing bodies in this country cannot act.

[JeMeSouviens]

Alex Thomson tweets:


alex thomson‏Verified account
@alextomo


The governance of Scottish football under Regan and Doncaster is totally exposed by the Supreme Court. The position of both is untenable.
2:01 AM - 5 Jul 2017

[JeMeSouviens]

our old chum RTC resurfaced on twitter. :not worth


https://twitter.com/rangerstaxcase/status/882541898585583616

[Smartie]

This can't be dismissed as a Rangers/Celtic thing.

Every Hibs fan and every supporter of every other top flight club put their hard earned cash into a rigged game for years. The authorities are complicit in sweeping this under the carpet.

This is THE biggest scandal in British sport in our lifetimes and people are shrugging their shoulders. I don't get it.

Yep, fair enough. I do pretty much agree.

I'm not too impressed that I bought season tickets for a rigged competition for a number of years.

The key part of the phrase though was "primarily by Celtic fans".

I think most fans of most clubs would want to see Rangers docked titles, partly for decent reasons (sporting integrity) and partly to see the boot put into a widely unpopular club.

But it's different from the Celtic angle. They'll be unanimous that titles should be docked and are reaching a foaming-mouthed frenzy over the whole thing.

If Petrie does pursue a particular line, I hope that it is partly as a result of gauging opinion amongst the Hibs support but mainly for what he feels is in the best interests of the Scottish game.

FWIW I've heard that Petrie was very forceful in the past in relation to seeing Rangers/Sevco/whoever being punished. He pushed for titles to be stripped, before the notorious "5 way agreement" was reached, an agreement that Petrie felt was soft on Rangers.

[KWJ]

This can't be dismissed as a Rangers/Celtic thing.

Every Hibs fan and every supporter of every other top flight club put their hard earned cash into a rigged game for years. The authorities are complicit in sweeping this under the carpet.

This is THE biggest scandal in British sport in our lifetimes and people are shrugging their shoulders. I don't get it.

I tend to agree.

Would any lawyer entertain a fan's claim that he was sold thousands of pounds worth of tickets under false pretenses? Probably not but just the challenge could cause a stir.

Maybe we'll end up down the salary cap path at some point.

I don't see either happening but this is a huge thing.

[Sioux]

The LNS commission reported on sporting advantage on a false premise. At the time of the commission they said that as EBT's were legal no sporting advantage was gained as any club could have used them if they so chose.

Now it has been proven unanimously in the highest court in the land that the use of EBT's were illegal.

Therefore it is clear that Rangers illegal use of EBT's gave them an unfair sporting advantage.

The SFA can't hide behind this discredited LNS judgement any more.

Not quite correct.

Lord Hodge said in today's judgement;

"The legislative code for the taxation of income has developed over time to reflect changing governmental policies in relation to taxation, to remove loopholes in the tax regime and to respond to the behaviour of taxpayers. Such responses include the enactment of provisions to nullify the effects of otherwise successful tax avoidance schemes (or schemes which were apparently successful pending a definitive judicial determination)."

What this means is that when the EBTs were being used they were regarded by the users as successful avoidance schemes, or at least were not unsuccessful. HMRC had the opposing view. Until today, the definitive judicial determination is that the scheme failed to have the tax effect that the promoters designed for. Until today, there was no authority for saying what was done in 2001 to 2009 was anything other than attempt at effective tax planning. The judicial process has now decided that the steps taken in the avoidance scheme were not sufficient to have the effect for income tax purposes that they were intended to have.

The LNS 'judgement' was along the lines I've mentioned here, I think. No one could say with any legal authority, at the relevant time, that what the huns did was wrong.

[lord bunberry]

Alex Thomson tweets:

It's been untenable for a long time and it hasn't made a difference.

[Ozyhibby]

This can't be dismissed as a Rangers/Celtic thing.

Every Hibs fan and every supporter of every other top flight club put their hard earned cash into a rigged game for years. The authorities are complicit in sweeping this under the carpet.

This is THE biggest scandal in British sport in our lifetimes and people are shrugging their shoulders. I don't get it.

It's definitely not a Rangers/Celtic thing. I was at Easter road and had to watch as they celebrated on our pitch winning a title in the last minute of the game when every single player and their whole management team was being paid illegally through EBTs. You can't be a sports fan and just let that stand.
Rules are there for a reason and they have to be applied to all clubs.
The rules state that if a player is not registered properly then the game is forfeited 3-0. This has to be applied to Rangers just the same as its applied to Spartans when they were kicked out the Scottish cup for missing a signature.
If we are saying that Rangers have different rules then why bother going to watch football at all?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[The Modfather]

Rod Petrie is Chairman of the SFA board.

We are in a unique position of being able to demand of him just what are the SFA going to do about this confirmed cheating within the Scottish game for so many years or will he be complicit in the whitewash.

Petrie will do nothing. He'll sit quietly in the background, with the odd sound bite to appease us but making sure he doesn't rock the SFA boat so as to threaten his position on the jobs for the boys gravy train that is the SFA.

[Ozyhibby]

Petrie will do nothing. He'll sit quietly in the background, with the odd sound bite to appease us but making sure he doesn't rock the SFA boat so as to threaten his position on the jobs for the boys gravy train that is the SFA.

That's my fear.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170705/ddda7fd34f04030924a1caa6c67dd4af.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

Petrie will do nothing. He'll sit quietly in the background, with the odd sound bite to appease us but making sure he doesn't rock the SFA boat so as to threaten his position on the jobs for the boys gravy train that is the SFA.


tbf to roderick he would be rocking any boat all on his lonesome, it's a great pity the late Turnbull Hutton is not around to assist with any rocking of boats

[Phil MaGlass]

After the way the huns and the media hounded us after the cup final, I think Rod may well push for them to be stripped, I bloody hope so,
GO ON ROD, YOU KNOW IT MAKES SENSE.
Do it and I will forgive you for all the poor managerial appointments in the past

[.Sean.]

If a proper big club like Juventus can have titles striped then so can that mob.

[euro Hibby]

I read on the BBC that the goverment will likely pass a bill whereby EBT loans will be subjected to Tax from 1999 onwards if not repaid .
Bad 24 hours for the people !

[CropleyWasGod]

I read on the BBC that the goverment will likely pass a bill whereby EBT loans will be subjected to Tax from 1999 onwards if not repaid .
Bad 24 hours for the people !

You got a link?

[oldbutdim]

I thought Rodders was Vice President of the SFA?

Has this changed or is his appointment as Chairman an internet fact?

Last I heard he was Chair of the Professional Game Board, but that was about it.




I'm probably behind the times as usual.

[jacomo]

Not quite correct.

Lord Hodge said in today's judgement;

"The legislative code for the taxation of income has developed over time to reflect changing governmental policies in relation to taxation, to remove loopholes in the tax regime and to respond to the behaviour of taxpayers. Such responses include the enactment of provisions to nullify the effects of otherwise successful tax avoidance schemes (or schemes which were apparently successful pending a definitive judicial determination)."

What this means is that when the EBTs were being used they were regarded by the users as successful avoidance schemes, or at least were not unsuccessful. HMRC had the opposing view. Until today, the definitive judicial determination is that the scheme failed to have the tax effect that the promoters designed for. Until today, there was no authority for saying what was done in 2001 to 2009 was anything other than attempt at effective tax planning. The judicial process has now decided that the steps taken in the avoidance scheme were not sufficient to have the effect for income tax purposes that they were intended to have.

The LNS 'judgement' was along the lines I've mentioned here, I think. No one could say with any legal authority, at the relevant time, that what the huns did was wrong.


HMRC is one thing.

But how about Rangers use of side letters to hide full extent of remuneration from the football authorities?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Appeal rejected unanimously in the Supreme Court. Are we actually going to get sanctions here?

[Tobias Funke]

If a proper big club like Juventus can have titles striped then so can that mob.

Exactly Sean. No doubt their pondlife supporters will argue their innocence in their usual Billy Big Baws, weearrapeepul bullsh*t way. If this gets swept under the rug again, like every other misdemeanor that club are guilty of, then its as big a scandal as their EBT scheme cheating. Heads must roll and those two muppets in charge of our game need to go.

[Offside Trap]

You got a link?

I suspect the poster is referring to the Finance Bill 2017. There is a Disguised Remuneration charge in there relating to any EBT loans outstanding as at April 2019. Whilst enactment of that particular piece of the Finance Bill 2017 was postponed because the general election was called, it definitely will come into effect. The beneficiaries of the loans are liable for the tax and NIC. In the normal course of events, HMRC will look to the employer to remit the tax and NIC due under the charge...quite how that works for oldco I have no idea. Perhaps HMRC will go directly after the beneficiaries...:cb

[CropleyWasGod]

I suspect the poster is referring to the Finance Bill 2017. There is a Disguised Remuneration charge in there relating to any EBT loans outstanding as at April 2019. Whilst enactment of that particular piece of the Finance Bill 2017 was postponed because the general election was called, it definitely will come into effect. The beneficiaries of the loans are liable for the tax and NIC. In the normal course of events, HMRC will look to the employer to remit the tax and NIC due under the charge...quite how that works for oldco I have no idea. Perhaps HMRC will go directly after the beneficiaries...:cb

Ah gotcha.

This is KPMG's take on things. It seems that it is the employer who is liable... which is, after all, what this case has (broadly) been about.

https://home.kpmg.com/uk/en/home/insights/2016/12/draft-finance-bill-2017--changes-to-disguised-remuneration-legis.html

The bit in bold... that's the (hitherto) accepted way for HMRC to deal with deficient staff schemes. From various comments on social media, though, they seem to have changed their tack recently and are going after the recipients for the tax.

[SteveHFC]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34118126

[KWJ]

Are any of them saying that they aren't the same club now? :greengrin

[blackpoolhibs]

It's definitely not a Rangers/Celtic thing. I was at Easter road and had to watch as they celebrated on our pitch winning a title in the last minute of the game when every single player and their whole management team was being paid illegally through EBTs. You can't be a sports fan and just let that stand.
Rules are there for a reason and they have to be applied to all clubs.
The rules state that if a player is not registered properly then the game is forfeited 3-0. This has to be applied to Rangers just the same as its applied to Spartans when they were kicked out the Scottish cup for missing a signature.
If we are saying that Rangers have different rules then why bother going to watch football at all?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly, why some folk are wanting this to just blow over is beyond me? We need to rid our game of all the corruption, and this is just the start of it.

Dock them 3 points for every win and every title they won, doing nothing is just wrong and criminal. This should never be allowed to happen again, and a full punishment would go a long way of ensuring this.

[Sioux]

HMRC is one thing.

But how about Rangers use of side letters to hide full extent of remuneration from the football authorities?

The side letters and all other 'steps' were simply steps in the avoidance scheme. It would be a leap of faith, I think, to suggest that the side letters had nothing to do with the avoidance scheme and were created solely to 'fool' the footballing authorities.

You may note the example in the decision where Player A was contracted to £416,000 per annum, which net of tax would be around £250,000. The player would be rewarded by having two payments of £125,000 paid into his sub trust. So, in this example, you could say that the contract was overstated and nothing was hidden from the football authority.

This is getting into too much detail. It is no surprise that these issues are complex, so much so that the whole saga has gone on for over 5 years at litigation level and longer when taking account of a presumed extensive investigation by HMRC, and correspondence which may well have gone on for a number of years prior to litigation.

Having said that, I now note that the SPFL will now take time to "consider any implications for the SPFL."

Their analysis of the legality or otherwise is awaited with interest. However, I'd be surprised if they could make a case for cheating based solely on legal concepts. Morally Rangers don't have a leg to stand on, imo, but that's not the same thing.

[Spike Mandela]

I thought Rodders was Vice President of the SFA?

Has this changed or is his appointment as Chairman an internet fact?

Last I heard he was Chair of the Professional Game Board, but that was about it.




I'm probably behind the times as usual.
You are correct, my apologies...

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_football.cfm?page=2560

Still doesn't dilute his SFA influence though.

[WhileTheChief..]

Don't see the point in stripping them of titles.

No one gains anything from it and as far as Rangers go they would still say they had won them.

The new board aren't responsible for what went on before so don't see how they can be blamed or fined for the actions of others.

Sorry, I know this isn't a popular view!!

[Bighoose]

The only punishment old Rangers ever got was a small fine - which they still havent paid.

Never let them forget they have yet to be properly punished.

Being forced to restart in D3 was a circumventing of the rules for their benefit... it was not a punishment as the Gers Media types like to lie about.

[oldbutdim]

You are correct, my apologies...

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_football.cfm?page=2560

Still doesn't dilute his SFA influence though.

He will have his say no doubt, but no more influence or sway than the others. The usual governance and corporate responsibility will no doubt have the effect of damping any feelings of action.

He could always resign if he was unable to live with the agreed stance of course........

Probably not though eh.

[Carheenlea]

I sense that the SFA and SPFL would like to impose some sort of sanction, but haven't a clue what any sanction might consist of.

[Hibby Kay-Yay]

This is like the football equivalent of PPI. Let history be corrected so that those in the future can see the justice that should be brought against Rangers Football Club.

[oldbutdim]

I sense that the SFA and SPFL would like to impose some sort of sanction, but haven't a clue what any sanction might consist of.

I'm sure that nice Mr Traynor can think of a suitable response.

[Spike Mandela]

I sense that the SFA and SPFL would like to impose some sort of sanction, but haven't a clue what any sanction might consist of.

They like to come up with sanctions that aren't really sanctions like .....the transfer embargo which starts AFTER the transfer window shuts.....the 225K fine for not paying £9m VAT bill and.......the 10 point penalty which dropped Rangers from 2nd in the league to eeerrrrmm 2nd in the league.:cb

[heretoday]

We're there any other clubs using these EBT schemes I wonder?

Perhaps in England?

[FilipinoHibs]

We're there any other clubs using these EBT schemes I wonder?

Perhaps in England?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/englands-top-clubs-could-face-9995113

[Brunswickbill]

Don't see the point in stripping them of titles.

No one gains anything from it and as far as Rangers go they would still say they had won them.

The new board aren't responsible for what went on before so don't see how they can be blamed or fined for the actions of others.

Sorry, I know this isn't a popular view!!

The reason Celtic fans want to have the titles removed is so that they can reclaim soul ownership of "9 in a row." No other club or fans would benefit apart from seeing fair play done. So far as the titles and cups won, they are all tarnished whether or not the SFA take any formal action to remove them.

[Ozyhibby]

Don't see the point in stripping them of titles.

No one gains anything from it and as far as Rangers go they would still say they had won them.

The new board aren't responsible for what went on before so don't see how they can be blamed or fined for the actions of others.

Sorry, I know this isn't a popular view!!

It sends a message to future cheats that justice will be done.
Nobody gains from stripping Lance Armstrong of his titles but who could argue it's the right thing to do? Ben Johnson?
You are correct it's nothing to do with new Rangers but no one is arguing that it is?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blackpoolhibs]

The reason Celtic fans want to have the titles removed is so that they can reclaim soul ownership of "9 in a row." No other club or fans would benefit apart from seeing fair play done. So far as the titles and cups won, they are all tarnished whether or not the SFA take any formal action to remove them.

We ALL win, as it will then become crystal clear if you cheat you lose every game/title/cup.

[Moulin Yarns]

You got a link?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/40505839
Will those who took part now be chased for unpaid tax?The company is liable for the tax but given the company is in liquidation then the buck stops with the liquidators - in this case BDO. This doesn't mean that individuals who were in receipt of an EBT escape payment. Legislation is expected in the next few months that will require tax to be paid on all loans received through the EBT process from 1999 onwards.

[heretoday]

I've just had an unpleasant thought. If Rangers are stripped of their titles I assume that the teams coming second in the relevant years are credited with winning the league in those seasons. A brief look at the records shows a certain Gorgie club as runners up at least once.

[JeMeSouviens]

The reason Celtic fans want to have the titles removed is so that they can reclaim soul ownership of "9 in a row." No other club or fans would benefit apart from seeing fair play done. So far as the titles and cups won, they are all tarnished whether or not the SFA take any formal action to remove them.

The EBT years are all post 9iar.

[JeMeSouviens]

I've just had an unpleasant thought. If Rangers are stripped of their titles I assume that the teams coming second in the relevant years are credited with winning the league in those seasons. A brief look at the records shows a certain Gorgie club as runners up at least once.

Not necessarily. They could just void those years from the record books.

[Iain G]

David Murray still in denial / trying to deflect from his illegal activities and create some kind of philanthropic sob story that he was actually helping the poor small businesses, and blame it all on Craig Whyte again.

From the BBC story:

He said: "It should be emphasised that there have been no allegations made by HMRC or any of the courts that the club was involved in tax evasion, which is a criminal offence.

"The decision will be greeted with dismay by the ordinary creditors of the club, many of which are small businesses, who will now receive a much lower distribution in the liquidation of the club, which occurred during the ownership of Craig Whyte, than may otherwise have been the case."

It just beggars belief...

[Hibernia&Alba]

Not necessarily. They could just void those years from the record books.

It wouldn't be right to void the season for everybody because of The Rangers' behaviour. Though I very much doubt trophies won during the EBT era will be stripped, it's a valid discussion to have. The Rangers had an unfair advantage, paying players wages that were otherwise unaffordable. It's a clear case of cheating which needs to be fully debated.

[Lang Toun Hibs]

The only punishment old Rangers ever got was a small fine - which they still havent paid.

Never let them forget they have yet to be properly punished.

Being forced to restart in D3 was a circumventing of the rules for their benefit... it was not a punishment as the Gers Media types like to lie about.

Spot on...the new club were welcomed in...against the rules.

[CathroMustStay]

Any Hibs fan who is apathetic or has a 'meh' attitude towards justice against the crimes and cheating of Rangers Football Club (1872-2012) is, with respect, a cretin.

[Ozyhibby]

It wouldn't be right to void the season for everybody because of The Rangers' behaviour. Though I very much doubt trophies won during the EBT era will be stripped, it's a valid discussion to have. The Rangers had an unfair advantage, paying players wages that were otherwise unaffordable. It's a clear case of cheating which needs to be fully debated.

The Tour de France just have an asterisk where Lance Armstrong used to be.
That's what should happen in Scotland.
https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170705/b81adfef6830e562c80f332d15a0987e.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Lang Toun Hibs]

Don't see the point in stripping them of titles.

No one gains anything from it and as far as Rangers go they would still say they had won them.

The new board aren't responsible for what went on before so don't see how they can be blamed or fined for the actions of others.

Sorry, I know this isn't a popular view!!

Well, if that's your view then you're entitled to it....but while you've got it, away and boil yer heid and make daft soup! Stripping the titles would finally be some form of punishment the old club can't avoid. No need to award the stripped titles to others, just a clear and official recognition that cheating isn't acceptable. The old club is punished, the record books amended and we can all move on.

[emerald green]

I see Sir David Murray has released a statement decrying the Supreme Court verdict. What a surprise. :rolleyes:

In it, Murray claims the court decision "will be greeted with dismay by ordinary creditors of the club (as was), many of whom are small businesses, who will now receive a much lower distribution in the liquidation of the club than may otherwise have been the case." So whose to blame for that SDM?

Just like the hard pressed British taxpayer was deprived of revenue by his EBTs. Presumably HMRC will now pursue those individuals for any tax payable?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Belter of a quote on Follow Follow:


'I know that it’s been stated on here that there’s no appetite in the SFA to go down the road of attempting to rob us of titles won squarely and fairly on the field of play, but if the last five years has taught us anything, its that Scotland is a country consumed with hatred'.

:faf:

A unanimous verdict against them in the highest court in the land, but it's all a conspiracy against The Rangers, who won those trophies 'fairly and squarely'. They are head cases.

[Ozyhibby]

I see Sir David Murray has released a statement decrying the Supreme Court verdict. What a surprise. :rolleyes:

In it, Murray claims the court decision "will be greeted with dismay by ordinary creditors of the club (as was), many of whom are small businesses, who will now receive a much lower distribution in the liquidation of the club than may otherwise have been the case." So whose to blame for that SDM?

Just like the hard pressed British taxpayer was deprived of revenue by his EBTs. Presumably HMRC will now pursue those individuals for any tax payable?

"Liquidation of the club" [emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crazyhorse]

Not quite correct.

Lord Hodge said in today's judgement;

"The legislative code for the taxation of income has developed over time to reflect changing governmental policies in relation to taxation, to remove loopholes in the tax regime and to respond to the behaviour of taxpayers. Such responses include the enactment of provisions to nullify the effects of otherwise successful tax avoidance schemes (or schemes which were apparently successful pending a definitive judicial determination)."

What this means is that when the EBTs were being used they were regarded by the users as successful avoidance schemes, or at least were not unsuccessful. HMRC had the opposing view. Until today, the definitive judicial determination is that the scheme failed to have the tax effect that the promoters designed for. Until today, there was no authority for saying what was done in 2001 to 2009 was anything other than attempt at effective tax planning. The judicial process has now decided that the steps taken in the avoidance scheme were not sufficient to have the effect for income tax purposes that they were intended to have.

The LNS 'judgement' was along the lines I've mentioned here, I think. No one could say with any legal authority, at the relevant time, that what the huns did was wrong.

Well now that we have an actual decision on this issue backed up by the highest 'legal authority' perhaps they should have stated that this aspect of their judgement would need to be deferred until there was legal guidance?

[FilipinoHibs]

I've just had an unpleasant thought. If Rangers are stripped of their titles I assume that the teams coming second in the relevant years are credited with winning the league in those seasons. A brief look at the records shows a certain Gorgie club as runners up at least once.
Think Hearts need to be stripped of their three SCs as won with money they did not have and never paid back.

[Hibernia&Alba]

All other clubs in Scotland should release a joint statement demanding an independent inquiry with the power to make formal recommendations of sanctions to the SFA. Take the initiative here.

[Crazyhorse]

[QUOTE=heretoday;5091382]I've just had an unpleasant thought. If Rangers are stripped of their titles I assume that the teams coming second in the relevant years are credited with winning the league in those seasons. A brief look at the records shows a certain Gorgie club as runners up at least once.[/QUO

You could recalculate the league removing all dead Rangers results.

Anyone know what happened when Juve were stripped of their title?

[Hibernia&Alba]

[QUOTE=heretoday;5091382]I've just had an unpleasant thought. If Rangers are stripped of their titles I assume that the teams coming second in the relevant years are credited with winning the league in those seasons. A brief look at the records shows a certain Gorgie club as runners up at least once.[/QUO

You could recalculate the league removing all dead Rangers results.

Anyone know what happened when Juve were stripped of their title?

Weren't Inter awarded several of Juve's titles?

[livi hibs 1875]

[QUOTE=heretoday;5091382]I've just had an unpleasant thought. If Rangers are stripped of their titles I assume that the teams coming second in the relevant years are credited with winning the league in those seasons. A brief look at the records shows a certain Gorgie club as runners up at least once.[/QUO

You could recalculate the league removing all dead Rangers results.

Anyone know what happened when Juve were stripped of their title?
They got the title stripped and it was not reassigned I think, just checked and this on wiki ,Stripped of the 2004–05 Serie A title
• 2004–05 title not assigned
• Downgraded to last place in the 2005–06 championship (title given to Inter) and relegation to Serie B.

[bigwheel]

I'm going to be out on my own in this one but feel this is a very difficult topic to apportion blame ...despite wanting the Huns to be pilloried for any remote reason ...it's hard to suggest retrospective punishment here. They took an approach to minimise the tax position of their players and employees...that tax approach would have been subject to advice from many experts..and they went forward on that basis.. it was not at the time views as illegal..in fact it seems to have been in line with the then HMRC guidance . HMRC have won this case that sets a precedent that this was wrong , not allowable ..actually. That is quite unique about the HMRC - they win cases that allows retrospective impacts - they do it in other fields too - such as the handling of contractor status ..which can create previous year's liabilities for individuals and employers ...

Feels to me unfair actually that the HMRC can win cases which impact the past - it would be more fair to force people to change with immediate effect ...

That said , GIRUY Sevco. [emoji2]

[MichaelTheCelt]

Celtic Statement

WE note today’s decision by the Supreme Court. Celtic's position on this issue has been consistent - that this has always been a matter for the courts of law and also the Scottish football authorities, whose rules are intended to uphold sporting integrity.

In 2013, we expressed surprise - shared by many observers and supporters of the game - over the findings of the SPL Commission that no competitive or sporting advantage had resulted. Today’s decision only re-affirms that view.

We are sure now that the footballing authorities in Scotland will wish to review this matter. Celtic awaits the outcome of their review.


http://www.celticfc.net/news/12873

[Ozyhibby]

How can it just be 'effective tax planning' as suggested in a couple of posts above if it required the concealment of 2nd contracts from both HMRC and the SFA?



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chinaman]

[QUOTE=Crazyhorse;5091432]

Weren't Inter awarded several of Juve's titles?

2 titles

[High-On-Hibs]

How can The Rangers be stripped of their titles when they haven't yet won any? :confused:

[Hibernia&Alba]

Celtic Statement

WE note today’s decision by the Supreme Court. Celtic's position on this issue has been consistent - that this has always been a matter for the courts of law and also the Scottish football authorities, whose rules are intended to uphold sporting integrity.

In 2013, we expressed surprise - shared by many observers and supporters of the game - over the findings of the SPL Commission that no competitive or sporting advantage had resulted. Today’s decision only re-affirms that view.

We are sure now that the footballing authorities in Scotland will wish to review this matter. Celtic awaits the outcome of their review.


http://www.celticfc.net/news/12873

I've just written the Hibs statement:

'You dirty cheating *******, you've been rumbled. Hand back the trophies and here's a seven figure fine for bringing the game into disrepute. Hibernian FC says GIRFUY'.

[Spike Mandela]

Celtic Statement

WE note today’s decision by the Supreme Court. Celtic's position on this issue has been consistent - that this has always been a matter for the courts of law and also the Scottish football authorities, whose rules are intended to uphold sporting integrity.

In 2013, we expressed surprise - shared by many observers and supporters of the game - over the findings of the SPL Commission that no competitive or sporting advantage had resulted. Today’s decision only re-affirms that view.

We are sure now that the footballing authorities in Scotland will wish to review this matter. Celtic awaits the outcome of their review.


http://www.celticfc.net/news/12873

Booomm!!!!:flag:

Over to whitewash central at the SFA.

[Ozyhibby]

Good on Celtic. I wish we would do the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

I've just had an unpleasant thought. If Rangers are stripped of their titles I assume that the teams coming second in the relevant years are credited with winning the league in those seasons. A brief look at the records shows a certain Gorgie club as runners up at least once.


[QUOTE=Crazyhorse;5091432]
They got the title stripped and it was not reassigned I think, just checked and this on wiki ,Stripped of the 2004–05 Serie A title
• 2004–05 title not assigned
• Downgraded to last place in the 2005–06 championship (title given to Inter) and relegation to Serie B.


[QUOTE=Crazyhorse;5091432]

Weren't Inter awarded several of Juve's titles?

This is one of the problems I have with the idea of stripping titles.

I'm reasonably comfortable with the concept of titles being scratched from the record.

But could anyone, anywhere seriously say that any sort of justice had been done if a title was taken from Rangers for financial doping then award to Hearts? Yes, that financially super pumped Hearts side that was created with funds way beyond their means and is probably still being paid for by Lithuanian pensioners.

It was a murky, dark period for Scottish football full stop. There many clubs "at it". Rangers, Hearts, Motherwell, Dundee, Gretna......Many clubs lived beyond their means, gained a sporting advantage and paid for it by stiffing small businesses and creditors. How many games during that period were genuinely played on a level playing field? Not many, and Rangers were far from alone in their misdeeds.

There will be clubs like Celtic, Hibs and St Johnstone who should come out of that period with their heads held high and their dignity intact, which in many ways counts for a bit more than a few tainted trophies. Winning a trophy by cheating ain't that great, winning one for coming second irrespective of the circumstances isn't really something to shout about either.

Rather than scratching around trying to re-write the record books from a decade ago, the only priority for me is ensuring that our current set of rules and our current set of people enforcing them stand up to scrutiny. I'm not entirely sure they do.

[MichaelTheCelt]

Good on Celtic. I wish we would do the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was just about to say over to you Hibernian....

Same goes for Aberdeen, Partick Thistle, Dundee United and so on and so on.

Titles stripped null and void massive asterisk beside those years.

For what it's worth I don't doubt Lawell and Leanne Dempster and co have spoken about this outcome and what to do next. More to come I think.

[Dalianwanda]

I was just about to say over to you Hibernian....

Same goes for Aberdeen, Partick Thistle, Dundee United and so on and so on.

Titles stripped null and void massive asterisk beside those years.

For what it's worth I don't doubt Lawell and Leanne Dempster and co have spoken about this outcome and what to do next. More to come I think.

If that was the case I really don't understand why there wasn't a joint statement put out...Show that it's not just a Celtic thing but a whole of Scottish Football thing..

[Smartie]

I was just about to say over to you Hibernian....

Same goes for Aberdeen, Partick Thistle, Dundee United and so on and so on.

Titles stripped null and void massive asterisk beside those years.

For what it's worth I don't doubt Lawell and Leanne Dempster and co have spoken about this outcome and what to do next. More to come I think.

A lot of the chairmen and women of Scottish football are pretty cosy though. Yes, Rangers have gone out on a limb over the past few years but there is still probably a working relationship that exists with them. I'd be surprised if there is a natural appetite amongst the the teams other than Celtic to do much.

A quick glance around a few message boards though and it becomes clear that the fans of all clubs feel very strongly about this matter. Fan power brought about a big change 5 years or so ago and it might well do the same again.

[hughio]

[QUOTE=livi hibs 1875;5091439]

[QUOTE=Hibernia&Alba;5091437]

This is one of the problems I have with the idea of stripping titles.

I'm reasonably comfortable with the concept of titles being scratched from the record.

But could anyone, anywhere seriously say that any sort of justice had been done if a title was taken from Rangers for financial doping then award to Hearts? Yes, that financially super pumped Hearts side that was created with funds way beyond their means and is probably still being paid for by Lithuanian pensioners.

It was a murky, dark period for Scottish football full stop. There many clubs "at it". Rangers, Hearts, Motherwell, Dundee, Gretna......Many clubs lived beyond their means, gained a sporting advantage and paid for it by stiffing small businesses and creditors. How many games during that period were genuinely played on a level playing field? Not many, and Rangers were far from alone in their misdeeds.

There will be clubs like Celtic, Hibs and St Johnstone who should come out of that period with their heads held high and their dignity intact, which in many ways counts for a bit more than a few tainted trophies. Winning a trophy by cheating ain't that great, winning one for coming second irrespective of the circumstances isn't really something to shout about either.

Rather than scratching around trying to re-write the record books from a decade ago, the only priority for me is ensuring that our current set of rules and our current set of people enforcing them stand up to scrutiny. I'm not entirely sure they do.
:agree:

[MichaelTheCelt]

A lot of the chairmen and women of Scottish football are pretty cosy though. Yes, Rangers have gone out on a limb over the past few years but there is still probably a working relationship that exists with them. I'd be surprised if there is a natural appetite amongst the the teams other than Celtic to do much.

A quick glance around a few message boards though and it becomes clear that the fans of all clubs feel very strongly about this matter. Fan power brought about a big change 5 years or so ago and it might well do the same again.

Fans need to put pressure on their clubs to do so, nevermind Celtic, Hibernian have lost out. Champions league revenue for many clubs lost out, how different would the landscape of Scottish football be today?

It's plain to see the SFA have done what they could to help out the dead club and keep everything hush hush and they have been exposed they've put the game in disrepute, we've all been cheated.

For this to never happen again the right thing must be done, I don't want those titles by the way that's not my agenda. I just want it in the history books they cheated us all, and the SFA were complicit by the way heads must role. Hibernian and the rest imo need to make a stand on this.

[heretoday]

I'm still worried about the stripping business. I think Hearts lost to the Rangers in a couple of Hampden finals during that time. Did we not lose a league cup to them too? Or was that earlier?

[ancient hibee]

Clearly this is going to have huge repercussions way over and above football clubs,many of whom,like Celtic,have already settled.Next target for HMRC will be individuals who claim self employed status while working for only one "employer" and individuals forming companies to shelter their income and avoid tax and nic while really being employee.s

[Ozyhibby]

Hearts never finished 2nd, so no need to worry on that front.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CathroMustStay]

We need to release an official statement on this issue.

ASAP.

[ancient hibee]

No we don't.

[MichaelTheCelt]

We need to release an official statement on this issue.

ASAP.

Might follow suit now... Maybe some were waiting to see who fired first before they made theirs. I don't think clubs will want to piss their fans off with remaining quiet on this issue.

[Since90+2]

I'd be surprised if any other clubs release a statement on it. Happy to be proved wrong but I think Celtic will have to go it alone on that front.

[Ozyhibby]

We really should be releasing a statement.
The financial doping in Scottish football has hurt us as much as any club in Scottish football. We shouldn't just shrug our shoulders when we have a chance to send a clear message that it can't happen again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cabbageandribs1875]

Belter of a quote on Follow Follow:


'I know that it’s been stated on here that there’s no appetite in the SFA to go down the road of attempting to rob us of titles won squarely and fairly on the field of play, but if the last five years has taught us anything, its that Scotland is a country consumed with hatred'.

:faf:

A unanimous verdict against them in the highest court in the land, but it's all a conspiracy against The Rangers, who won those trophies 'fairly and squarely'. They are head cases.



interesting comment from a fan of the vile bigoted hun

[MichaelTheCelt]

We really should be releasing a statement.
The financial doping in Scottish football has hurt us as much as any club in Scottish football. We shouldn't just shrug our shoulders when we have a chance to send a clear message that it can't happen again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You could always contact the club via email, might not get a reply but if enough fans make enquiries regarding it who knows...

http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/contact?selected=enquiry

[livi hibs 1875]

You could always contact the club via email, might not get a reply but if enough fans make enquiries regarding it who knows...

http://www.hibernianfc.co.uk/contact?selected=enquiry

Thanks for that Michael, us hibs supporters might never have found that page without you

[MichaelTheCelt]

Thanks for that Michael, us hibs supporters might never have found that page without you

:hilarious
Hey look it was only for the posters on here not good at the whole internet google searching thingy ma bob :wink:

[Geo_1875]

[QUOTE=livi hibs 1875;5091439]

[QUOTE=Hibernia&Alba;5091437]

This is one of the problems I have with the idea of stripping titles.

I'm reasonably comfortable with the concept of titles being scratched from the record.

But could anyone, anywhere seriously say that any sort of justice had been done if a title was taken from Rangers for financial doping then award to Hearts? Yes, that financially super pumped Hearts side that was created with funds way beyond their means and is probably still being paid for by Lithuanian pensioners.

It was a murky, dark period for Scottish football full stop. There many clubs "at it". Rangers, Hearts, Motherwell, Dundee, Gretna......Many clubs lived beyond their means, gained a sporting advantage and paid for it by stiffing small businesses and creditors. How many games during that period were genuinely played on a level playing field? Not many, and Rangers were far from alone in their misdeeds.

There will be clubs like Celtic, Hibs and St Johnstone who should come out of that period with their heads held high and their dignity intact, which in many ways counts for a bit more than a few tainted trophies. Winning a trophy by cheating ain't that great, winning one for coming second irrespective of the circumstances isn't really something to shout about either.

Rather than scratching around trying to re-write the record books from a decade ago, the only priority for me is ensuring that our current set of rules and our current set of people enforcing them stand up to scrutiny. I'm not entirely sure they do.

Heads held high but with a reduced bank balance because of the Hun cheating. We can take the moral high ground but without punishment they won't give a damn. The EBT's have been shown to be a flawed attempt to boost the earnings of players without paying the appropriate taxes. Would these players have signed on for the Hun for less money? I doubt it and that's why they won their trophies. Players who they wouldn't have attracted without dubious financial practice, including failing to properly register contracts. The whole thing stinks and until there is a reckoning Scottish Football will forever be tainted.

[livi hibs 1875]

:hilarious
Hey look it was only for the posters on here not good at the whole internet google searching thingy ma bob :wink:

And once again thanks for the help

[Onion]

[QUOTE=Smartie;5091457][QUOTE=livi hibs 1875;5091439]



Heads held high but with a reduced bank balance because of the Hun cheating. We can take the moral high ground but without punishment they won't give a damn. The EBT's have been shown to be a flawed attempt to boost the earnings of players without paying the appropriate taxes. Would these players have signed on for the Hun for less money? I doubt it and that's why they won their trophies. Players who they wouldn't have attracted without dubious financial practice, including failing to properly register contracts. The whole thing stinks and until there is a reckoning Scottish Football will forever be tainted.

Spot on. SFA would rather sweep this murk under the carpet as it was on their watch and they lack the balls to take Sevco, their "peepul" and their media pals on. The correct result would be to acknowledge the probable outcome of the Hun's financial doping and simply strip them of the titles gained during that whole period a la Lance Armstrong. You don't have to pass the titles to the runners up.

[Ozyhibby]

SFA have released a statement but I can't get onto it. Probably high traffic.
http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish_fa_news.cfm?page=2986&newsID=17055&newsCategoryID=1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

And they are saying no further action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Since90+2]

What an absolute joke. A team have been found to have dodged tax on £49 million worth of players salaries (players who they clearly would not have been able to afford otherwise) and the SFA say they will take no further action.

That is beyond belief.

[StevieT]

And they are saying no further action.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Exactly. Nothing to see here. Move along.

[tamig]

Hearts never finished 2nd, so no need to worry on that front.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They did finish second - but not to the hun.

[Bostonhibby]

What an absolute joke. A team have been found to have dodged tax on £49 million worth of players salaries (players who they clearly would not have been able to afford otherwise) and the SFA say they will take no further action.

That is beyond belief.
Guilt by association. These turkeys simply can't vote for Xmas by taking retrospective action against the dead club as they run the risk of their own shortcomings (or worse) being exposed.

Scotland's shame.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

SFA say the Huns can get away with it:





Scottish FA statement on Supreme Court ruling
Wednesday, 05 July 2017


The Board of the Scottish FA notes the judgment of the Supreme Court and wishes to clarify the implications of this final legal decision from a football regulatory perspective.

In light of the Inner House of the Court of Session decision, the Board of the Scottish FA sought external senior counsel opinion to ensure a robust and independent consideration of all implications of today’s judgment.

The Board received written advice from Senior Counsel, amplified when the QC attended a full meeting of the Board to discuss his conclusions.

Specifically, Senior Counsel was asked to anticipate whether a determination in favour of HMRC, as announced today, could imply that there had been a breach of the Scottish FA’s Disciplinary Rules as they applied at the time of the EBT payments.

The clear opinion of Senior Counsel is that there is a very limited chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any complaint regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would also be limited in their scope.

Accordingly, having had time to consider the opinion from Senior Counsel, and having examined the judgment of the UK Supreme Court, the Board has determined that no further disciplinary action should be taken by the Scottish FA at this time.

[Col2]

Hunbelievable.

Nothing to see here...move along.

By making an immediate decision they may have underestimated the feelings across football. Chief Exec position untenable.

[heretoday]

Just award all the titles to Hibs and we'll say no more about it.

[DaveSo]

The SFA cannot strip the titles.
It was the SPFL who ran the league so its they who decide what punishment should be handed down surely ?

[Hibernia&Alba]

The SFA cannot strip the titles.
It was the SPFL who ran the league so its they who decide what punishment should be handed down surely ?

Good point. There's still hope for justice!

[Spike Mandela]

SFA say the Huns can get away with it:





Scottish FA statement on Supreme Court ruling
Wednesday, 05 July 2017


The Board of the Scottish FA notes the judgment of the Supreme Court and wishes to clarify the implications of this final legal decision from a football regulatory perspective.

In light of the Inner House of the Court of Session decision, the Board of the Scottish FA sought external senior counsel opinion to ensure a robust and independent consideration of all implications of today’s judgment.

The Board received written advice from Senior Counsel, amplified when the QC attended a full meeting of the Board to discuss his conclusions.

Specifically, Senior Counsel was asked to anticipate whether a determination in favour of HMRC, as announced today, could imply that there had been a breach of the Scottish FA’s Disciplinary Rules as they applied at the time of the EBT payments.

The clear opinion of Senior Counsel is that there is a very limited chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any complaint regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would also be limited in their scope.

Accordingly, having had time to consider the opinion from Senior Counsel, and having examined the judgment of the UK Supreme Court, the Board has determined that no further disciplinary action should be taken by the Scottish FA at this time.

Whitewash. Corrupt. Morally bankrupt. Biased. Whatever you want to call it Scottish football governance is not fit for purpose and is run purely for the benefit of powerful agendas. Rod Petrie is complicit in this statement and proves how much his 'sporting integrity' statement was utter hypocricy.

Up to the fans now to hold these governing bodies to account but I fear this time the various football Chairmen have theier season ticket money in and will ride out any upsurge in fan outrage.

Scottish football doesn't deserve our hard earned cash. It's a fake competition.

[Ozyhibby]

Whitewash. Corrupt. Morally bankrupt. Biased. Whatever you want to call it Scottish football governance is not fit for purpose and is run purely for the benefit of powerful agendas. Rod Petrie is complicit in this statement and proves how much his 'sporting integrity' statement was utter hypocricy.

Up to the fans now to hold these governing bodies to account but I fear this time the various football Chairmen have theier season ticket money in and will ride out any upsurge in fan outrage.

Scottish football doesn't deserve our hard earned cash. It's a fake competition.

Sporting integrity was just a slogan for Petrie. When it comes down to it, he won't stand up and be counted.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

This is the SPFL board. It's down to them now.
Peter Lawwell (Celtic) Ann Budge (Hearts) Ian Maxwell (Partick) Leeann Dempster (Hibs) Eric Drysdale (Raith) Ken Ferguson (Brechin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

This is the SPFL board. It's down to them now.
Peter Lawwell (Celtic) Ann Budge (Hearts) Ian Maxwell (Partick) Leeann Dempster (Hibs) Eric Drysdale (Raith) Ken Ferguson (Brechin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Eric Drysdale's an interesting one.

I can't see many people on that board who would take the same attitude as the SFA have (not that I know anything about either Maxwell or Ferguson).

[kaimendhibs]

I knew the GFA would sweep it under the carpet. Scottish Football is rotten to the core and changes are long overdue

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

This is the SPFL board. It's down to them now.
Peter Lawwell (Celtic) Ann Budge (Hearts) Ian Maxwell (Partick) Leeann Dempster (Hibs) Eric Drysdale (Raith) Ken Ferguson (Brechin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Are they scheduled to meet, in light of the Supreme Court ruling?

[Spike Mandela]

This is the SPFL board. It's down to them now.
Peter Lawwell (Celtic) Ann Budge (Hearts) Ian Maxwell (Partick) Leeann Dempster (Hibs) Eric Drysdale (Raith) Ken Ferguson (Brechin


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't forget Neil Doncaster and Ralph Topping a couple of grovelling toads that will do anything to smooth Rangers ascent to prominence and protect them from pesky things like rules.

[CropleyWasGod]

Clearly this is going to have huge repercussions way over and above football clubs,many of whom,like Celtic,have already settled.Next target for HMRC will be individuals who claim self employed status while working for only one "employer" and individuals forming companies to shelter their income and avoid tax and nic while really being employee.s

Those have been targets for years.

[CropleyWasGod]

Are they scheduled to meet, in light of the Supreme Court ruling?

http://spfl.co.uk/news/article/spfl-statement-74/

"The Board of the SPFL notes today's judgement of the Supreme Court. We will now take time to examine the ‎judgement in detail and to consider any implications for the SPFL."

[CropleyWasGod]

I knew the GFA would sweep it under the carpet. Scottish Football is rotten to the core and changes are long overdue

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

It's difficult to see what the SFA could do here. Who would they take action against, and how? That's clearly at the heart of the legal advice they have been given.

The only option I could see would be to strip them of Cup wins, since that is the only competition run by them.

It's more of an SPL/SPFL issue IMO.

[Bishop Hibee]

Regan out!

[lapsedhibee]

It's difficult to see what the SFA could do here. The only option I could see would be to strip them of Cup wins, since that is the only competition run by them.


So, not that difficult to see after all! :wink:

[allezsauzee]

Rather than stripping titles and awarding them to other clubs, wouldn't it easier for the SPFL and SFA to accept that the club who cheated their way to those titles is now dead and that the new club which is 5 years old have won nothing more than the championship, division 1, division 2 and the petrofac cup? They can get rid of one of those stars on their shirts and each of the 4 stars remaining can refer to the illustrious aforementioned titles.

[beensaidbefore]

SFA say the Huns can get away with it:





Scottish FA statement on Supreme Court ruling
Wednesday, 05 July 2017


The Board of the Scottish FA notes the judgment of the Supreme Court and wishes to clarify the implications of this final legal decision from a football regulatory perspective.

In light of the Inner House of the Court of Session decision, the Board of the Scottish FA sought external senior counsel opinion to ensure a robust and independent consideration of all implications of today’s judgment.

The Board received written advice from Senior Counsel, amplified when the QC attended a full meeting of the Board to discuss his conclusions.

Specifically, Senior Counsel was asked to anticipate whether a determination in favour of HMRC, as announced today, could imply that there had been a breach of the Scottish FA’s Disciplinary Rules as they applied at the time of the EBT payments.

The clear opinion of Senior Counsel is that there is a very limited chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any complaint regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would also be limited in their scope.

Accordingly, having had time to consider the opinion from Senior Counsel, and having examined the judgment of the UK Supreme Court, the Board has determined that no further disciplinary action should be taken by the Scottish FA at this time.

Joke of a response.

[MileHighBees]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40501361
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40510207

Today's BBC articles note 'between 2001 and 2010'
So, assuming that is the relevant time period for their 'EBT years', here's what they 'won' :-

(season)-(trophy)-(runner-up)

2001/2002 - Scottish Cup - Celtic
2001/2002 - League Cup - Ayr United

2002/2003 - SPL - Celtic
2002/2003 - Scottish Cup - Dundee
2002/2003 - League Cup - Celtic

2003/2004 - nothing

2004/2005 - SPL - Celtic
2004/2005 - League Cup - Motherwell

2005/2006 - nothing

2006/2007 - nothing

2007/2008 - Scottish Cup - Queen of the South
2007/2008 - League Cup - Dundee United

2008/2009 - SPL - Celtic
2008/2009 - Scottish Cup - Falkirk

2009/2010 - SPL - Celtic
2009/2010 - League Cup - St Mirren

2010/2011 - SPL - Celtic
2010/2011 - League Cup - Celtic

[Is It On....]

It would appear from articles published that £47m was paid in EBTs between 2001-2010. OldCo will be liable for the employer National Insurance on this number with a penalty interest rate (I think 5%-7%) per annum for each year of non payment so HMRC will become a preferred creditor. The employee is responsible for making sure they have declared the correct amount of income and paid the correct amount of tax and NI. I have checked this with of couple of accountants today but stand to be corrected. Using Alex Rae as an example, he was paid £569k in 2 seasons and left in 2006. The tax now due is £227k plus a late payment fee of at least 10 years which could amount to another £227k meaning that his total tax liability as a result of todays ruling of £454k. The National Insurance liability and subsequent penalty would be extra!! Barry Ferguson was paid £2.5m under the EBT so his tax liability will almost certainly be in excess of £2m!! I would have said HMRC are almost certain to go after the individuals given the amounts involved and there will be a few very nervous ex-Rangers players tonight.

[Onion]

SFA say the Huns can get away with it:





Scottish FA statement on Supreme Court ruling
Wednesday, 05 July 2017


The Board of the Scottish FA notes the judgment of the Supreme Court and wishes to clarify the implications of this final legal decision from a football regulatory perspective.

In light of the Inner House of the Court of Session decision, the Board of the Scottish FA sought external senior counsel opinion to ensure a robust and independent consideration of all implications of today’s judgment.

The Board received written advice from Senior Counsel, amplified when the QC attended a full meeting of the Board to discuss his conclusions.

Specifically, Senior Counsel was asked to anticipate whether a determination in favour of HMRC, as announced today, could imply that there had been a breach of the Scottish FA’s Disciplinary Rules as they applied at the time of the EBT payments.

The clear opinion of Senior Counsel is that there is a very limited chance of the Scottish FA succeeding in relation to any complaint regarding this matter and that, even if successful, any sanctions available to a Judicial Panel would also be limited in their scope.

Accordingly, having had time to consider the opinion from Senior Counsel, and having examined the judgment of the UK Supreme Court, the Board has determined that no further disciplinary action should be taken by the Scottish FA at this time.

Then they need the opinion of a different "Senior Council". Had HMRC not taken this all the way up to the Supreme Court, and just accepted the opinion of the lower courts, the Huns would have been exonerated. And, if the SFA/SPFL stripped titles from the Dead Rangers, who is there left to object and defend Dead Rangers ? Sevco have no money and would bankrupt themselves if they took it to court.

[CropleyWasGod]

It would appear from articles published that £47m was paid in EBTs between 2001-2010. OldCo will be liable for the employer National Insurance on this number with a penalty interest rate (I think 5%-7%) per annum for each year of non payment. The employee is responsible for making sure they have declared the correct amount of income and paid the correct amount of tax and NI. I have checked this with of couple of accountants today but stand to be corrected. Using Alex Rae as an example, he was paid £569k in 2 seasons and left in 2006. The tax now due is £227k plus a late payment fee of at least 10 years which could amount to another £227k meaning that his total tax liability as a result of todays ruling of £454k. The National Insurance liability and subsequent penalty would be extra!! Barry Ferguson was paid £2.5m under the EBT so his tax liability will almost certainly be in excess of £2m!! I would have said HMRC are almost certain to go after the individuals given the amounts involved and there will be a few very nervous ex-Rangers players tonight.

Have to disagree with that.

At the time of the "offences", HMRC's policy was to hold an employer responsible for the faulty operation of its PAYE & NI system. Indeed, that's the approach they took in arriving at the amount due to them by Oldco. They have "grossed-up" net payments made to the recipients for tax and NI, and assessed the employer accordingly.

As mentioned earlier, there is draft legislation proposed to hold recipients responsible for a "loan charge" on any un-repaid EBT payments. It's still not clear how that charge will be calculated, so it's very difficult to say how the likes of Ferguson will be affected. Indeed, reading Deloitte's comments just now, they think it will be difficult to enforce for payments made prior to 2010.

[ancient hibee]

Those have been targets for years.

With little success I believe.

[WhileTheChief..]

What punishment should the SFA be handing out? What would make everyone think, aye, good, they've done the right thing at last?

[CropleyWasGod]

With little success I believe.

I'd disagree.

The introduction of IR35, the change in legislation surrounding dividend payments, and better-targeted inquiries into "status", have all been positive from an HMRC point of view.

Also, the negative publicity surrounding "contractors" has led the likes of the BBC to review its own use of such staff.

Against that, though, the slashing in HMRC staff numbers has meant that the enquiries are less-well managed than they should be.

[Joe6-2]

Good on Celtic. I wish we would do the same.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would be a nice reprisal for all the BS levelled at us after THE cup final

[jacomo]

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-40501361
http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/40510207

Today's BBC articles note 'between 2001 and 2010'
So, assuming that is the relevant time period for their 'EBT years', here's what they 'won' :-

(season)-(trophy)-(runner-up)

2001/2002 - Scottish Cup - Celtic
2001/2002 - League Cup - Ayr United

2002/2003 - SPL - Celtic
2002/2003 - Scottish Cup - Dundee
2002/2003 - League Cup - Celtic

2003/2004 - nothing

2004/2005 - SPL - Celtic
2004/2005 - League Cup - Motherwell

2005/2006 - nothing

2006/2007 - nothing

2007/2008 - Scottish Cup - Queen of the South
2007/2008 - League Cup - Dundee United

2008/2009 - SPL - Celtic
2008/2009 - Scottish Cup - Falkirk

2009/2010 - SPL - Celtic
2009/2010 - League Cup - St Mirren

2010/2011 - SPL - Celtic
2010/2011 - League Cup - Celtic


As others have said, just void them. Like the Tour did with Lance Armstrong.

[Pedantic_Hibee]

As others have said, just void them. Like the Tour did with Lance Armstrong.

Correct.

It's an old club anyway so it doesn't affect any existing football team.

[Hibs Class]

What punishment should the SFA be handing out? What would make everyone think, aye, good, they've done the right thing at last?

There isn't any need for anything vindictive, given that oldco is long dead. All that is needed is a fair, proportionate reaction, and the only one that meets that criterion is to strip the titles that were won by cheating. The prize money they won, and the resultant income from euro campaigns they cheated their way to, should just be written off. It would be unfair to pursue newco for that money, given they are a different club.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Alex Thomson on Channel 4 news the noo. He's hatred of the Huns goes back a long way :greengrin

[Crazyhorse]

Alex Thomson on Channel 4 news the noo. He's hatred of the Huns goes back a long way :greengrin

Indeed he isn't letting it lie. His utter contempt for the Scottish msm goes back a long time too.

[Ronniekirk]

Last nights embarrassment in Europe is maybe evidence of Karma and an indication how far they have fallen as. Club since going down to the Third division and trying to pretend they are back They have a long way to go and don't think there is the appetite in the Hierarchy to inflict further pain or sanctions , even if it was within their power
Their Titles and Cups won during the E B T years are Tainted They may be in denial , but everyone else knows and lets not let them forget it Their arrogance knows no bounds and the way they as a Club Treated us after the Cup Final will also not be forgotten They made a fool of themselves yet again
King is not that well liked and he will now come back under scrutiny from the support
They have reaped what they sowed
Hope we hump them in second game of Season


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

So, not that difficult to see after all! :wink:
Yeah, you're right.

People have been talking about stripping of "titles", which I equated with the League.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Kaiser1962]

What is bordering on the ridiculous are the statements (from Murray etc) that somehow todays ruling is flawed. How on earth did these, supposedly intelligent men, think that they were going to receive large amounts of money for services rendered and somehow not have to pay tax on it? Murray said that “the decision runs counter to the legal advice which was consistently provided to Rangers.” . It would appear, Sir David, that the legal advice you recieved was sheite so good luck sueing them.

It was greed pure and simple. Whether it was the individuals receiving payment (and Murray was good to himself here) or the club pursuing success on the field they thought they had found a wee loophole, however nonsensical that might appear, and tried to exploit it to the nth degree. It seems clear now, some would argue it has always been thus, that on field success was intrinsically linked to the avoidance/evasion of tax and todays decision, and the information that became public in the Whyte trial, just confirms this.

Shysters the lot of them.

[lapsedhibee]

Yeah, you're right.

People have been talking about stripping of "titles", which I equated with the League.



I'd let Murray keep his K, but all the rest should be gone by Monday morning.

[Jack Hackett]

I'd let Murray keep his K, but all the rest should be gone by Monday morning.

Murray is the biggest shark in the bog. He should be title stripped, publicly flogged, hung, drawn and quartered... just for starters

[CropleyWasGod]

What is bordering on the ridiculous are the statements (from Murray etc) that somehow todays ruling is flawed. How on earth did these, supposedly intelligent men, think that they were going to receive large amounts of money for services rendered and somehow not have to pay tax on it? Murray said that “the decision runs counter to the legal advice which was consistently provided to Rangers.” . It would appear, Sir David, that the legal advice you recieved was sheite so good luck sueing them.

It was greed pure and simple. Whether it was the individuals receiving payment (and Murray was good to himself here) or the club pursuing success on the field they thought they had found a wee loophole, however nonsensical that might appear, and tried to exploit it to the nth degree. It seems clear now, some would argue it has always been thus, that on field success was intrinsically linked to the avoidance/evasion of tax and todays decision, and the information that became public in the Whyte trial, just confirms this.

Shysters the lot of them.
I'm wondering if SDM is positioning himself, in case of potential criminal charges.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

What is bordering on the ridiculous are the statements (from Murray etc) that somehow todays ruling is flawed. How on earth did these, supposedly intelligent men, think that they were going to receive large amounts of money for services rendered and somehow not have to pay tax on it? Murray said that “the decision runs counter to the legal advice which was consistently provided to Rangers.” . It would appear, Sir David, that the legal advice you recieved was sheite so good luck sueing them.

It was greed pure and simple. Whether it was the individuals receiving payment (and Murray was good to himself here) or the club pursuing success on the field they thought they had found a wee loophole, however nonsensical that might appear, and tried to exploit it to the nth degree. It seems clear now, some would argue it has always been thus, that on field success was intrinsically linked to the avoidance/evasion of tax and todays decision, and the information that became public in the Whyte trial, just confirms this.

Shysters the lot of them.

Neither Murray or MIM could produce any legal advice at the hearings because they didn't have any.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MrSmith]

I'm wondering if SDM is positioning himself, in case of potential criminal charges.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

That was my thoughts too. I cannot get my head around why SDM and his people thought they would get away with it? It's them pesky hibs fans isn't it?

[lapsedhibee]

Murray is the biggest shark in the bog. He should be title stripped, publicly flogged, hung, drawn and quartered... just for starters

Ach, you've won me over. Head on a spike outside Ipox anaw!

[jacomo]

I'm wondering if SDM is positioning himself, in case of potential criminal charges.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk


I have no doubt SDM is primarily concerned with himself. Habit of a lifetime I suppose.

[21.05.2016]

Todays ruling just set in stone and confirmed what everyone already knew - that Rangers used seedy deals, underhand tactics and just blatant cheat tactics to get an advantage on everybody else. There has been no real new revelations, its simply made their cheating past "official" if you like. However, it has now cemented what they did and they deserve punishment, not only for cheating but for (once again) embarrassing Scottish football and bringing the game into disripute.

If Sevco are not liable for the debts of the past then they can't claim the glories of the past. They can't have it both ways. They want nothing to do with the debts, the seedy past etc but they are happy to lap up the prizes they gained from it.

A deplorable club has just become even more deplorable (yes I know, I didn't think it was possible either!). A club that has sunk to lows in every possible area.

[Jack Hackett]

Ach, you've won me over. Head on a spike outside Ipox anaw!

... While it burns :greengrin

[weecounty hibby]

Rangers are a shower of dirty underhanded cheating *******s. I've known that for the last 44 years of watching Hibs. But now it is official as decided by the highest court in the land. They have had referees and the SFA/SPFL/SPL etc helping them and they still found new ways to cheat. They should have some of those poxy stars removed from that hideous blue rag they wear.

[tamig]

Rangers are a shower of dirty underhanded cheating *******s. I've known that for the last 44 years of watching Hibs. But now it is official as decided by the highest court in the land. They have had referees and the SFA/SPFL/SPL etc helping them and they still found new ways to cheat. They should have some of those poxy stars removed from that hideous blue rag they wear.

Big bugbear of mine those stars. They had to invent a reason to have them. Now time for some to be whipped off.

[Smartie]

Big bugbear of mine those stars. They had to invent a reason to have them. Now time for some to be whipped off.

I love the stars on their shirts.

They've won dozens of league titles fair and square and those titles are tarnished by the fact that they are hell bent on hanging onto the dodgy ones.

The fact that they feel the need to put stars on their shirts just makes a further mockery of the whole already-ludicrous institution.

The stars are a permanent, shameful reminder of their disgraceful recent past that they must wear for every game.

[Captain Trips]

Todays ruling just set in stone and confirmed what everyone already knew - that Rangers used seedy deals, underhand tactics and just blatant cheat tactics to get an advantage on everybody else. There has been no real new revelations, its simply made their cheating past "official" if you like. However, it has now cemented what they did and they deserve punishment, not only for cheating but for (once again) embarrassing Scottish football and bringing the game into disripute.

If Sevco are not liable for the debts of the past then they can't claim the glories of the past. They can't have it both ways. They want nothing to do with the debts, the seedy past etc but they are happy to lap up the prizes they gained from it.

A deplorable club has just become even more deplorable (yes I know, I didn't think it was possible either!). A club that has sunk to lows in every possible area.

This

[Kaiser1962]

I'm wondering if SDM is positioning himself, in case of potential criminal charges.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

I would think that is quite likely.

Although a scheme that pays £6m to a company that then loans you it back and you dont have to either pay tax on it (going out or coming in) and neither do you have to repay the loan. What could possibly go wrong wiith such a bullet proof scheme?

I know i simplify things quite considerably but Murray was considered to be one of the foremost businessmen in the country, you would think that he, or some of his people (not to be confused with THE people) would see a potential flaw in the plan.


Neither Murray or MIM could produce any legal advice at the hearings because they didn't have any.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Now that is interesting. I presume there's no way he could be in possession of said "legal advice" and not disclosing it at the hearing to be produced later when its his get out jail card? That would be contempt would it not?

[majorhibs]

Rather than stripping titles and awarding them to other clubs, wouldn't it easier for the SPFL and SFA to accept that the club who cheated their way to those titles is now dead and that the new club which is 5 years old have won nothing more than the championship, division 1, division 2 and the petrofac cup? They can get rid of one of those stars on their shirts and each of the 4 stars remaining can refer to the illustrious aforementioned titles.

What I've said from day 1. The 1 thing they fear, hugely! The 1 thing that should be done. The 1 thing that (listen GFA) will appease. They did NOT win anything then fairly because they paid more for better players because they were breaking tax rules, but it is irrelevant! That club is FINISHED DEAD done, due to their huge debts.

[southern hibby]

Now not into all this accountancy and legal stuff and I might be totally off the boil by my thought on it BUT WHAT IF?

1 because these are loans a court decides that they have to pay the money back to Rangers ( they players and managers that were involved inEBT's )

2 the money paid back then went towards the debt that Rangers left all the creditors with including the tax man.

I would guess that the tax man would be happy to chase the players etc for the tax that was avoided but what would happen if another creditor decided to take the players managers to court who benefited and asked for the money to be paid back to Rangers as it wasn't wages according to Rangers but loans, so that it could then be divided between creditors? Or if it was wages then that means that the deliberately avoided tax and were breaking the law.

GGTTH

[Ozyhibby]

I would think that is quite likely.

Although a scheme that pays £6m to a company that then loans you it back and you dont have to either pay tax on it (going out or coming in) and neither do you have to repay the loan. What could possibly go wrong wiith such a bullet proof scheme?

I know i simplify things quite considerably but Murray was considered to be one of the foremost businessmen in the country, you would think that he, or some of his people (not to be confused with THE people) would see a potential flaw in the plan.



Now that is interesting. I presume there's no way he could be in possession of said "legal advice" and not disclosing it at the hearing to be produced later when its his get out jail card? That would be contempt would it not?

Not sure if HMRC are up for pursuing it but the concealment of the side letters from HMRC would surely be fraud?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deansy]

What is bordering on the ridiculous are the statements (from Murray etc) that somehow todays ruling is flawed. How on earth did these, supposedly intelligent men, think that they were going to receive large amounts of money for services rendered and somehow not have to pay tax on it? Murray said that “the decision runs counter to the legal advice which was consistently provided to Rangers.” . It would appear, Sir David, that the legal advice you recieved was sheite so good luck sueing them.

It was greed pure and simple. Whether it was the individuals receiving payment (and Murray was good to himself here) or the club pursuing success on the field they thought they had found a wee loophole, however nonsensical that might appear, and tried to exploit it to the nth degree. It seems clear now, some would argue it has always been thus, that on field success was intrinsically linked to the avoidance/evasion of tax and todays decision, and the information that became public in the Whyte trial, just confirms this.

Shysters the lot of them.

Wasn't it revealed that the guy they got their 'Advice' from is now working in the 'Porn Industry' ?

Anyway, couple of points from his statement in 'The Scotman' -

'............ the contributions made to the trust were not earnings and should not be taxed as such'

So what were they then ? Can CWG or any other of the accounting/business-types on here say what these 'contributions' could be considered as ??


'.......... the liquidation of the club, which occured during the ownership of Craig Whyte'

DESPICABLE - the only word I can think of to describe Murray right now !. Found guilty of cheating yet still tries to use that poor dupe to try and deflect from the fact were it not for him - and him alone - the Hun would not have been in the position they ended-up in !

[ancient hibee]

That was my thoughts too. I cannot get my head around why SDM and his people thought they would get away with it? It's them pesky hibs fans isn't it?
They thought they would get away with it because hundred of companies throughout the U.K. were doing it.Thet's why the taxman kept appealing.

[CropleyWasGod]

Now not into all this accountancy and legal stuff and I might be totally off the boil by my thought on it BUT WHAT IF?

1 because these are loans a court decides that they have to pay the money back to Rangers ( they players and managers that were involved inEBT's )

2 the money paid back then went towards the debt that Rangers left all the creditors with including the tax man.

I would guess that the tax man would be happy to chase the players etc for the tax that was avoided but what would happen if another creditor decided to take the players managers to court who benefited and asked for the money to be paid back to Rangers as it wasn't wages according to Rangers but loans, so that it could then be divided between creditors? Or if it was wages then that means that the deliberately avoided tax and were breaking the law.

GGTTH
The "loans" didn't come from Rangers. The club made payments to trusts, which then made the loans to the players etc.



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[CropleyWasGod]

Wasn't it revealed that the guy they got their 'Advice' from is now working in the 'Porn Industry' ?

Anyway, couple of points from his statement in 'The Scotman' -

'............ the contributions made to the trust were not earnings and should not be taxed as such'

So what were they then ? Can CWG or any other of the accounting/business-types on here say what these 'contributions' could be considered as ??


'.......... the liquidation of the club, which occured during the ownership of Craig Whyte'

DESPICABLE - the only word I can think of to describe Murray right now !. Found guilty of cheating yet still tries to use that poor dupe to try and deflect from the fact were it not for him - and him alone - the Hun would not have been in the position they ended-up in !
The contributions to the trusts were exactly that. They were not earnings. He is right about that.

However, he is blowing smoke about the actual issue. It is the payments BY the trusts that are the earnings.

The adviser, by the way, was in the adult industry before he became a tax specialist. Just another way of ****ing people for money.....

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Deansy]

The contributions to the trusts were exactly that. They were not earnings. He is right about that.

However, he is blowing smoke about the actual issue. It is the payments BY the trusts that are the earnings.

The adviser, by the way, was in the adult industry before he became a tax specialist. Just another way of ****ing people for money.....

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Cheers CWG - sorry, but can you clarify the 'contributions' point -

1) WHO actually contributed ?

2) And what could/would be their answer when asked WHY they made these contributions - what were they expecting or hoping to get out of it ?

[CropleyWasGod]

Cheers CWG - sorry, but can you clarify the 'contributions' point -

1) WHO actually contributed ?

2) And what could/would be their answer when asked WHY they made these contributions - what were they expecting or hoping to get out of it ?
The club made the contributions.

What they got out of it were players at a lower cost than if they had paid them in the conventional way. Or, conversely, players that they wouldn't have been able to afford had they paid them in the conventional way.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[jacomo]

The club made the contributions.

What they got out of it were players at a lower cost than if they had paid them in the conventional way. Or, conversely, players that they wouldn't have been able to afford had they paid them in the conventional way.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk


And, crucially, it was clearly understood as part of their contract.

[Deansy]

The club made the contributions.

What they got out of it were players at a lower cost than if they had paid them in the conventional way. Or, conversely, players that they wouldn't have been able to afford had they paid them in the conventional way.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Cheers CWG - I realise now asking that question made me look a bit stupid but I DID know that's why they did it but wasn't the Huns argument that it WASN'T so they could get players they couldn't afford ?. They've never explained what it was for I'm just trying to put myself in Murray's shoes and I'd made that statement -

'............ the contributions made to the trust were not earnings and should not be taxed as such'

And then someone asked me to explain exactly WHAT these contributions were for then - what could/would my answer be ?

[CropleyWasGod]

Cheers CWG - I realise now asking that question made me look a bit stupid but I DID know that's why they did it but wasn't the Huns argument that it WASN'T so they could get players they couldn't afford ?. They've never explained what it was for I'm just trying to put myself in Murray's shoes and I'd made that statement -

'............ the contributions made to the trust were not earnings and should not be taxed as such'

And then someone asked me to explain exactly WHAT these contributions were for then - what could/would my answer be ?

Ah, I get you.:aok:

Like I say, though, he is correct in what he says. The "contributions" were not earnings. But he's deflecting.

The follow-up question should be "but, SDM, it's not the contributions TO the trusts that are the issue here. Would you now agree with the Court that the payments BY the trusts are earnings?"

[G B Young]

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/rangers-big-tax-case-sfa-wades-into-debate-on-stripping-gers-of-titles-1-4496082

SFA quick to try and airbrush over the implications of the Supreme Court ruling.

[CropleyWasGod]

A succinct summary from CA Tax magazine. Much better than the nonsense in the Record today.

Tax advisers generally, together with employers with similar Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) arrangements, have been waiting for seven years for this final judgement to emerge. It is therefore pleasing to have a final, binding decision which can now be relied upon by employers and their tax advisers. Having followed the debate through two tribunal hearings and a Court of Session hearing, it is clear that the unanimous Supreme Court judgement handed down by Lord Hodge, which has been the best part of four months in the making, has also been a difficult and complicated process.

The three key issues being reviewed by the Supreme Court were whether the £47+ million paid from offshore EBTs to over 80 players and staff did in fact constitute earnings under ICTA 1988 and ITEPA 2003; whether the deeming provisions within the legislation were sufficient to capture the payments as earnings and whether each recipient was sufficiently close to the funds that this meant they had been placed unreservedly at their disposal.

Lord Hodge agreed with the First Tier Tribunal dissenting judge Dr Poon’s assessment that “the legislative code for emoluments has primacy over the benefits code in relation to loans”. This appears to have been a crucial deciding factor in this case, and the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision that the three key issues pointed towards earnings from an employment, making the payments liable to PAYE and NICs.

It now appears that BDO, liquidators to Rangers Football Club, will be liable for any taxes deemed to be due under this ruling. It is unclear whether the players who were the original beneficiaries of the EBT could be asked to pay any back taxes by HMRC.

It is important to note that since the 'Rangers' EBT was first set up, tax practice and attitudes to tax avoidance have moved on. The introduction of the DOTAS (Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes) rules, changes to penalty regimes and more recently the introduction of accelerated payment notices and follower notices have changed the climate. Additionally, all the main professional bodies for tax advisers have agreed to revised Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation rules, which establish standards in relation to tax planning.

[Crazyhorse]

And, crucially, it was clearly understood as part of their contract.

And was it not also confirmed in writing (the undeclared side letters). Or have I misunderstood their function?

[Keith_M]

Apparently Paul Baxendale-Walker, the guy who introduced the concept of EBTs to the Murray Group and Rangers has had a change of career.


He's now a Porn Star!




I know I should be surprised but......

[gerry70]

And was it not also confirmed in writing (the undeclared side letters). Or have I misunderstood their function?

Petrie is on SFA board so is he in agreement with their statement that they will do nothing?

Dempster is on the League board who will look into it.

Celtic the only club so far to comment - does anyone expect Hibs to make a public comment, and do you think they should?

[CropleyWasGod]

Apparently Paul Baxendale-Walker, the guy who introduced the concept of EBTs to the Murray Group and Rangers has had a change of career.


He's now a Porn Star!




I know I should be surprised but......

He was a "porn-baron" (Whatever TF that is... perhaps 1 rank below a Porn-Duke) before his name surfaced in the RFC case. He also owned Loaded for a while.

There's plenty goss on him out there. eg...Struck off as a solicitor for impersonating an HMRC officer. :rolleyes:

[Ozyhibby]

Petrie is on SFA board so is he in agreement with their statement that they will do nothing?

Dempster is on the League board who will look into it.

Celtic the only club so far to comment - does anyone expect Hibs to make a public comment, and do you think they should?

I don't expect a comment from Hibs again. Despite us losing out to financially doped teams the whole decade I expect us to do absolutely nothing about it. And there are still no FFP rules in Scottish football and is happening again right now with the new Rangers currently racking up the debts again who will likely take a European spot from us this season but we will just doff our cap to them again.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[CyberSauzee]

And was it not also confirmed in writing (the undeclared side letters). Or have I misunderstood their function?

No, you're correct.

When players were signing for Rangers FC (in liquidation), they were told they were getting x amount as a basic salary, plus all this extra cash going into this trust (EBT).

Understandably the agents for these players said we'll need that in writing; the so called 'side letters' that explicitly stated the player will have money placed into their trust.

These letters have lead to the 'imperfectly registered' players at the SFA, as this income was known about but not part of the contract lodged (pun intended) with the SFA. These signed letters though are a written contract, so in effect the old Rangers were playing players who were not properly registered. Punishments for this vary across different leagues and footballing authorities. For league matches it's generally loss of points, cup competitions it's disqualification or replay the game.

CWG and the other CAs on here can correct any inaccuracies, bit I think that's the gist of it.

[gramskiwood]

https://www.channel4.com/news/hmrc-wins-rangers-tax-battle

[Keith_M]

He was a "porn-baron" (Whatever TF that is... perhaps 1 rank below a Porn-Duke) before his name surfaced in the RFC case. He also owned Loaded for a while.

There's plenty goss on him out there. eg...Struck off as a solicitor for impersonating an HMRC officer. :rolleyes:


Maybe it's a strict hierarchy.

Porn Star, Porn Duke, Porn Baron... Knight to King Porn, etc.

[Offside Trap]

A succinct summary from CA Tax magazine. Much better than the nonsense in the Record today.

Tax advisers generally, together with employers with similar Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) arrangements, have been waiting for seven years for this final judgement to emerge. It is therefore pleasing to have a final, binding decision which can now be relied upon by employers and their tax advisers. Having followed the debate through two tribunal hearings and a Court of Session hearing, it is clear that the unanimous Supreme Court judgement handed down by Lord Hodge, which has been the best part of four months in the making, has also been a difficult and complicated process.

The three key issues being reviewed by the Supreme Court were whether the £47+ million paid from offshore EBTs to over 80 players and staff did in fact constitute earnings under ICTA 1988 and ITEPA 2003; whether the deeming provisions within the legislation were sufficient to capture the payments as earnings and whether each recipient was sufficiently close to the funds that this meant they had been placed unreservedly at their disposal.

Lord Hodge agreed with the First Tier Tribunal dissenting judge Dr Poon’s assessment that “the legislative code for emoluments has primacy over the benefits code in relation to loans”. This appears to have been a crucial deciding factor in this case, and the main reason for the Supreme Court’s decision that the three key issues pointed towards earnings from an employment, making the payments liable to PAYE and NICs.

It now appears that BDO, liquidators to Rangers Football Club, will be liable for any taxes deemed to be due under this ruling. It is unclear whether the players who were the original beneficiaries of the EBT could be asked to pay any back taxes by HMRC.

It is important to note that since the 'Rangers' EBT was first set up, tax practice and attitudes to tax avoidance have moved on. The introduction of the DOTAS (Disclosure of tax avoidance schemes) rules, changes to penalty regimes and more recently the introduction of accelerated payment notices and follower notices have changed the climate. Additionally, all the main professional bodies for tax advisers have agreed to revised Professional Conduct in Relation to Taxation rules, which establish standards in relation to tax planning.

Thanks for this article CWG. But I don't understand the part in bold. Why would BDO be liable here??

[greenginger]

Thanks for this article CWG. But I don't understand the part in bold. Why would BDO be liable here??

I think it means BDO as the organisation responsible for distributing the liquidated Rangers FC 's creditors pot.

Means creditors will get about 5p in the £, instead of 10p .

Still its 5p more than poor sods who were ordinary Yam creditors.

[Ozyhibby]

https://www.channel4.com/news/by/alex-thomson/blogs/rangers-cheated-football-fraudulent-silverware


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tynie01011973]

I think it means BDO as the organisation responsible for distributing the liquidated Rangers FC 's creditors pot.

Means creditors will get about 5p in the £, instead of 10p .

Still its 5p more than poor sods who were ordinary Yam creditors.

Yes, BDO are in charge of the liquidation of Oldco Rangers and the distribution of the remaining assets between all Creditors of the Oldco.
HMRC were already the largest creditor but now the SC ruling now adds the Big Tax Case liability to the debt due to them. This will probably result in no other creditors getting any money, just like UKIO with HMFC.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes, BDO are in charge of the liquidation of Oldco Rangers and the distribution of the remaining assets between all Creditors of the Oldco.
HMRC were already the largest creditor but now the SC ruling now adds the Big Tax Case liability to the debt due to them. This will probably result in no other creditors getting any money, just like UKIO with HMFC.

All ordinary creditors, including HMRC, will get the same p/£ dividend.

The only way they will get nothing is if the Wavetower case goes against BDO, and the legal action against Duff & Phelps fails.

(For reference, the last BDO report showed £15m in the pot. There's a legal action against Duff & Phelps for £28m. Wavetower's claim is £18m. )

Ordinary creditors are, IIRC, around £160m, including the EBT tax.

[Alan62]

Should BDO not be trying to recover the tax amount from the players via the trusts? Presumably the trusts still exist and they do have the power to recall the loans either in full or part?

If that money can't be recovered, or if HMRC can't go after the individuals involved for unpaid tax then would that mean that the ruse of using a trust to protect income from tax could still be used?

[JeMeSouviens]

The contributions to the trusts were exactly that. They were not earnings. He is right about that.

However, he is blowing smoke about the actual issue. It is the payments BY the trusts that are the earnings.

The adviser, by the way, was in the adult industry before he became a tax specialist. Just another way of ****ing people for money.....

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

... he featured in one of Mark Daly's BBC documentaries and revealed that the Huns went against his specific advice, which was that nothing should be written down that would make the payments seem contractual. Of course, football agents were never going to go on a nod and a wink ...

[ballengeich]

These letters have lead to the 'imperfectly registered' players at the SFA, as this income was known about but not part of the contract lodged (pun intended) with the SFA. These signed letters though are a written contract, so in effect the old Rangers were playing players who were not properly registered. Punishments for this vary across different leagues and footballing authorities. For league matches it's generally loss of points, cup competitions it's disqualification or replay the game.


It's worth remembering that Lord Nimmo-Smith's inquiry didn't punish Rangers for not paying tax, but did find that they had fielded players who were "imperfectly registered". As you correctly remark the penalty is generally loss of points. LNS decided just to impose a fine, stating that EBT schemes were available to all clubs so Rangers had not gained a sporting advantage.

In 2014 Livingston were penalised 5 points for non-payment of tax on bonus payments. The amount involved was trivial compared to the sums systematically concealed by Rangers. The punishment for Rangers seemed very slight at the time and now that their EBT scheme has been declared invalid the case should be revisited as the premise on which the punishment was based has been shown to be incorrect. I hope Hibs will back Celtic's call for the SPFL to re-examine the case.

[CropleyWasGod]

Should BDO not be trying to recover the tax amount from the players via the trusts? Presumably the trusts still exist and they do have the power to recall the loans either in full or part?

If that money can't be recovered, or if HMRC can't go after the individuals involved for unpaid tax then would that mean that the ruse of using a trust to protect income from tax could still be used?

The loans weren't from the company, though. They were from the Trusts. In that light, BDO have no power to recall them. As I understand the set-up, the loans are only repayable to the Trusts when the recipient wants to repay it, or when they die.

On your last point, there is new legislation proposed which would prevent that.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Good statement from Aberdeen fans. The sentence in bold is the nub of the issue: it's called cheating:




Dons Supporters Together have urged those in power to punish the Glasgow giants after the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled in favour of HRMC over the Ibrox club's use of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs).

Celtic later that day released a statement that called on league chiefs to review their initial ruling which in 2013 found no further action should be taken because the use of EBTS did not give Rangers any "unfair competitive advantage".

The SFA then put out a statement of their own that said "no further disciplinary action should be taken".

However, Aberdeen fans groups Dons Supporters Together are not satisfied and have called for the Ibrox side to be stripped of the 14 trophies the club won during the EBT years of 2001 to 2010.

A statement read: "Dons Supporters Together aim to represent the Aberdeen FC supporting community and have done since their inception. Those supporters that travel home and away, week-in, week-out and spend a fortune while doing it.


"We all appreciate that the Scottish Football League has its faults and its critics. But, we fully expect, and it is our absolute right, that the sport we love and invest in is fair and honest.


The Ibrox club lost the ruling at the Supreme Court (Photo: Getty Images Europe)

"On 5th July 2017 the Supreme Court backed HM Revenue and Customs in its fight with Rangers FC over their use of Employee Benefit Trusts between 2001 and 2010. This allowed Rangers FC to recruit members of staff of a certain quality that they could not ordinarily afford. Rangers FC undisputedly cheated the taxman to win 14 trophies.



"Dons Supporters Together share the view with supporters who have invested in the Scottish game, that Rangers FC should be stripped of the 14 trophies won during these EBT years.

"We now appeal to the Scottish football authorities, media, supporters and clubs in Scotland to review this matter and re-instate our trust in those running the game."

The SPFL, which later took over the running of the league after the merge of the SFL and SPL, said on Wednesday they "consider any implications for the SPFL".

[Crazyhorse]

Petrie is on SFA board so is he in agreement with their statement that they will do nothing?

Dempster is on the League board who will look into it.

Celtic the only club so far to comment - does anyone expect Hibs to make a public comment, and do you think they should?

Yes I do. If we agree that Rangers gained an unfair sporting advantage/mis-registered players then not to do so would be to condone their cheating/rule breaking.
Can anyone put the case to me for Hibs remaining silent on this?

[Hibernia&Alba]

Yes I do. If we agree that Rangers gained an unfair sporting advantage/mis-registered players then not to do so would be to condone their cheating/rule breaking.
Can anyone put the case to me for Hibs remaining silent on this?

I'd like to see every club in Scotland release a joint statement.

[CropleyWasGod]

Yes I do. If we agree that Rangers gained an unfair sporting advantage/mis-registered players then not to do so would be to condone their cheating/rule breaking.
Can anyone put the case to me for Hibs remaining silent on this?

I think there may be more mileage in going down the "fans' voice" route, as Aberdeen have. IIRC, it was the combined voice of supporters that forced the clubs' hands when voting on the RFC/SPL membership back in 2012.

(disclaimer; I'm not volunteering to organise it....)

[bigwheel]

Yes I do. If we agree that Rangers gained an unfair sporting advantage/mis-registered players then not to do so would be to condone their cheating/rule breaking.
Can anyone put the case to me for Hibs remaining silent on this?



against the wind of views here...but my view is that this is a retrospective decision. What was viewed as acceptable tax / benefits handling has now been declared unlawful. Therefore, I find it hard to view that it was "cheating"...aggressive tax and benefits handling yes - but until yesterday it was not illegal.

I feel it's a bit weird that HMRC can win a case that results in change on things that have already happened...that is a big can of worms for many businesses and individuals..

[Bostonhibby]

Yes I do. If we agree that Rangers gained an unfair sporting advantage/mis-registered players then not to do so would be to condone their cheating/rule breaking.
Can anyone put the case to me for Hibs remaining silent on this?
There isn't one but I think it might be wise to see what action the SPFL take. Petrie is one of the board members (?) and maybe it's not great timing,if the SPFL are going to take action, for Hibs to get in first?

Having said that I expect it to be covered up in some way that the vast majority of us won't like.

Maybe another pet QC'S opinion to hide behind like the sfa

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[oldbutdim]

There isn't one but I think it might be wise to see what action the SPFL take. Petrie is one of the board members (?) and maybe it's not great timing,if the SPFL are going to take action, for Hibs to get in first?

Having said that I expect it to be covered up in some way that the vast majority of us won't like.

Maybe another pet QC'S opinion to hide behind like the sfa

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

No he isn't.

[CropleyWasGod]

against the wind of views here...but my view is that this is a retrospective decision. What was viewed as acceptable tax / benefits handling has now been declared unlawful. Therefore, I find it hard to view that it was "cheating"...aggressive tax and benefits handling yes - but until yesterday it was not illegal.

I feel it's a bit weird that HMRC can win a case that results in change on things that have already happened...that is a big can of worms for many businesses and individuals..

It's not really retrospective. HMRC told RFC many years ago that, in their opinion, they were breaking the law.

Laws are written with an intention. With the best will in the world, though, they're not always very clear. So some people interpret them one way, and some another. The clarification then plays out in the Courts.

That's how Case Law has built up in tax practice for decades. And it's how this case has played out.

[Ozyhibby]

against the wind of views here...but my view is that this is a retrospective decision. What was viewed as acceptable tax / benefits handling has now been declared unlawful. Therefore, I find it hard to view that it was "cheating"...aggressive tax and benefits handling yes - but until yesterday it was not illegal.

I feel it's a bit weird that HMRC can win a case that results in change on things that have already happened...that is a big can of worms for many businesses and individuals..

The non disclosure of 2nd contracts was as against the rules then as it is now. They cheated and the knew they were cheating which is why they hid the contracts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

against the wind of views here...but my view is that this is a retrospective decision. What was viewed as acceptable tax / benefits handling has now been declared unlawful. Therefore, I find it hard to view that it was "cheating"...aggressive tax and benefits handling yes - but until yesterday it was not illegal.

I feel it's a bit weird that HMRC can win a case that results in change on things that have already happened...that is a big can of worms for many businesses and individuals..

But we all know EBTs weren't illegal per se at the time; it was a question of misuse, and they've been found guilty. They bought an advantage by inappropriate use of a financial scheme. The highest court in the land gave a unanimous decision - they cheated.

[Hibernia&Alba]

It's not really retrospective. HMRC told RFC many years ago that, in their opinion, they were breaking the law.

Laws are written with an intention. With the best will in the world, though, they're not always very clear. So some people interpret them one way, and some another. The clarification then plays out in the Courts.

That's how Case Law has built up in tax practice for decades. And it's how this case has played out.

:agree:

[Bostonhibby]

No he isn't.
You're right as he's done his stint. Leann is though. So is Ann Budge. Well known for her desire to do the right thing.

Interesting times ahead.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

You're right as he's done his stint. Leann is though. So is Ann Budge. Well known for her desire to do the right thing.

Interesting times ahead.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

Budge may be wary of any investigation widening into Hearts affairs though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bostonhibby]

Budge may be wary of any investigation widening into Hearts affairs though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Aye, sarcasm intended but we haven't got a smiley for it[emoji35]

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

[bigwheel]

It's not really retrospective. HMRC told RFC many years ago that, in their opinion, they were breaking the law.

Laws are written with an intention. With the best will in the world, though, they're not always very clear. So some people interpret them one way, and some another. The clarification then plays out in the Courts.

That's how Case Law has built up in tax practice for decades. And it's how this case has played out.


From their view though, they have a set of corporate tax lawyers who were telling them they were OK. And two courts (until yesterday) agreed with them...I can't comment on the "two contracts" point mentioned elsewhere- as I don't know that detail..but I sort of recall you come from an accounting background - you will perhaps then acknowledge that as tax handling gets more complex it is often hard to get definitive views - even from the HMRC. Sometimes, you need to go with there advice you are getting and take the risk. Banks and Corporate Tax experts told them they were OK...On this occasion it has come up heads, when they bet tails...

[CropleyWasGod]

From their view though, they have a set of corporate tax lawyers who were telling them they were OK. And two courts (until yesterday) agreed with them...I can't comment on the "two contracts" point mentioned elsewhere- as I don't know that detail..but I sort of recall you come from an accounting background - you will perhaps then acknowledge that as tax handling gets more complex it is often hard to get definitive views - even from the HMRC. Sometimes, you need to go with there advice you are getting and take the risk. Banks and Corporate Tax experts told them they were OK...On this occasion it has come up heads, when they bet tails...

They had a guy who was struck off as a solicitor in 2007 for conflicts of interest. That was it.

I'm not sure whether they sought a second opinion (people rarely do, but it would make sense to), or to what extent they shopped-around. However, as has been said, they didn't take his advice fully, in that they recorded the arrangements by way of the side-letters. So, in short, they were okay, but they didn't do it the way they were told to. :rolleyes:

My instinct in taking this sort of advice is to make sure that the adviser has adequate Indemnity Insurance, so that you can sue the hell out of them if things go wrong.

[Geo_1875]

From their view though, they have a set of corporate tax lawyers who were telling them they were OK. And two courts (until yesterday) agreed with them...I can't comment on the "two contracts" point mentioned elsewhere- as I don't know that detail..but I sort of recall you come from an accounting background - you will perhaps then acknowledge that as tax handling gets more complex it is often hard to get definitive views - even from the HMRC. Sometimes, you need to go with there advice you are getting and take the risk. Banks and Corporate Tax experts told them they were OK...On this occasion it has come up heads, when they bet tails...

At the same time they had HMRC giving a different opinion. That's why they ended up in court and lost.

[bigwheel]

At the same time they had HMRC giving a different opinion. That's why they ended up in court and lost.


well that happened later...and the HMRC view in these conversations is rarely definitive...Rangers certainly took a higher risk approach though, that's for sure.

[Offside Trap]

The loans weren't from the company, though. They were from the Trusts. In that light, BDO have no power to recall them. As I understand the set-up, the loans are only repayable to the Trusts when the recipient wants to repay it, or when they die.

On your last point, there is new legislation proposed which would prevent that.

Yip agreed that BDO will have no power over the Trustees to influence repayment of the loans. However the Finance Bill 2017 is retrospective and I cannot see how there can be any escape from the Disguised Remuneration charge which will arise on the outstanding loans in April 2019. In "normal" circumstances HMRC will hold the employer as responsible for settling the PAYE and NIC amount due in April 2019 (as they do for normal month to month PAYE and NIC). It is then up to the employer to obtain that PAYE and NIC from the employee (loan beneficiary). In other words, the employee (beneficiary) rather than employer is ultimately liable for the PAYE and NIC.

In the case of RFC, there is no longer an employer, so I would think that HMRC will go straight after the beneficiaries (the ex players and management of RFC) for settlement. In simple terms, a PAYE and NIC charge of 47% (using current rates) of the value of the outstanding loan should apply. All that BDO should be concerned with from a creditors perspective is the 13.8% employer's NIC - which is the "true" oldco liability they dodged?

[Ozyhibby]

From their view though, they have a set of corporate tax lawyers who were telling them they were OK. And two courts (until yesterday) agreed with them...I can't comment on the "two contracts" point mentioned elsewhere- as I don't know that detail..but I sort of recall you come from an accounting background - you will perhaps then acknowledge that as tax handling gets more complex it is often hard to get definitive views - even from the HMRC. Sometimes, you need to go with there advice you are getting and take the risk. Banks and Corporate Tax experts told them they were OK...On this occasion it has come up heads, when they bet tails...

Nobody advised them to conceal documents from HMRC and the SFA. They did that because they knew they were cheating. They produced not a single piece of advice they recorded during the whole case. They did this entirely of their own accord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigwheel]

They had a guy who was struck off as a solicitor in 2007 for conflicts of interest. That was it.

I'm not sure whether they sought a second opinion (people rarely do, but it would make sense to), or to what extent they shopped-around. However, as has been said, they didn't take his advice fully, in that they recorded the arrangements by way of the side-letters. So, in short, they were okay, but they didn't do it the way they were told to. :rolleyes:

My instinct in taking this sort of advice is to make sure that the adviser has adequate Indemnity Insurance, so that you can sue the hell out of them if things go wrong.


that approach is fraught with time, cost and risk that can take a companies attention for years - particularly if the advisors are large advisory businesses..

My understanding is that they had a range of advisors, some internal and some external - they certainly took an aggressive approach to minimise the tax liabilities of their employees that's for sure...

[bigwheel]

Nobody advised them to conceal documents from HMRC and the SFA. They did that because they knew they were cheating. They produced not a single piece of advice they recorded during the whole case. They did this entirely of their own accord.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


don't know anything on the first point...so will bow to your knowledge on that one..

people don't do these more complex trusts on their own...they will have been facilitated by corporate and tax accountants through the process..

[CropleyWasGod]

Yip agreed that BDO will have no power over the Trustees to influence repayment of the loans. However the Finance Bill 2017 is retrospective and I cannot see how there can be any escape from the Disguised Remuneration charge which will arise on the outstanding loans in April 2019. In "normal" circumstances HMRC will hold the employer as responsible for settling the PAYE and NIC amount due in April 2019 (as they do for normal month to month PAYE and NIC). It is then up to the employer to obtain that PAYE and NIC from the employee (loan beneficiary). In other words, the employee (beneficiary) rather than employer is ultimately liable for the PAYE and NIC.

In the case of RFC, there is no longer an employer, so I would think that HMRC will go straight after the beneficiaries (the ex players and management of RFC) for settlement. In simple terms, a PAYE and NIC charge of 47% (using current rates) of the value of the outstanding loan should apply. All that BDO should be concerned with from a creditors perspective is the 13.8% employer's NIC - which is the "true" oldco liability they dodged?

HMRC have already made their claim to BDO for the full amount of the assessed PAYE & NI, and that is what is now confirmed. They won't change that.

On the enforcement of the new draft proposals, this is what is on Deloitte's website:-

The retrospective move against historic third party loans made to current or former employees before 9 December 2010 was unexpected and is likely to be difficult to enforce.

In other words, any such move by HMRC will probably end up in more Court cases. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

that approach is fraught with time, cost and risk that can take a companies attention for years - particularly if the advisors are large advisory businesses..

My understanding is that they had a range of advisors, some internal and some external - they certainly took an aggressive approach to minimise the tax liabilities of their employees that's for sure...

Who were they? The only one mentioned thus far has been Baxendale-Walker.

[InchHibby]

I'm not too clever regarding the ins and outs of whether it was legal or illegal, but too the layman like me, the prime motive for payments such as these were to avoid paying income tax and if two clubs were after me, both offering, say £100,000, one where it would be eligible for tax and one that wouldn't, I know which one I'd go for. So The The Rangers knew this and they also knew that by doing it this way, it would give them a better chance of acquiring that player.
In other words they cheated.

[Ozyhibby]

Who were they? The only one mentioned thus far has been Baxendale-Walker.

If they had any advice they refused to share it with anyone so far. And Baxendale walker has already said that he told them not to have 2nd contracts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[FilipinoHibs]

I'm not too clever regarding the ins and outs of whether it was legal or illegal, but too the layman like me, the prime motive for payments such as these were to avoid paying income tax and if two clubs were after me, both offering, say £100,000, one where it would be eligible for tax and one that wouldn't, I know which one I'd go for. So The The Rangers knew this and they also knew that by doing it this way, it would give them a better chance of acquiring that player.
In other words they cheated.

A player is looking for £40,000 a week in his hand. Pay him through PAYE and you have to pay him £66,666 a week. Through EBTs £40,000. You can afford £40,000 a week but not £66,666. Using EBTs you have a player you could not afford and cheat society by not paying taxes.

[bigwheel]

Who were they? The only one mentioned thus far has been Baxendale-Walker.


they had a specific director at the time that came from a commercial background that was tasked with exploring it, and they were also using an Edinburgh firm (long time Murray associates) for informal advice...

[Offside Trap]

HMRC have already made their claim to BDO for the full amount of the assessed PAYE & NI, and that is what is now confirmed. They won't change that.

On the enforcement of the new draft proposals, this is what is on Deloitte's website:-

The retrospective move against historic third party loans made to current or former employees before 9 December 2010 was unexpected and is likely to be difficult to enforce.

In other words, any such move by HMRC will probably end up in more Court cases. :greengrin

I guess we get into a question of the interplay here between the liquidation process and the Finance Bill 2017. Put it this way, why would HMRC be prepared to accept a fraction of the pound in the liquidation process when they can exercise their likely powers under the Finance Bill 2017 in April 2019 to go after the individuals for the full amount of PAYE and NIC owed? The loans will remain outstanding at that point so fall squarely into the DR charge. Also unlikely to escape HMRC's attention that the individuals concerned are High Net Worth...

Deloitte's assertion of difficulty to enforce might be true but I don't believe it will stop HMRC. If I were one of the RFC EBT beneficiaries I would be more than a little concerned. Yesterday's ruling only serves to strengthen the HMRC hand. :cb

[GreenPJ]

I'm not too clever regarding the ins and outs of whether it was legal or illegal, but too the layman like me, the prime motive for payments such as these were to avoid paying income tax and if two clubs were after me, both offering, say £100,000, one where it would be eligible for tax and one that wouldn't, I know which one I'd go for. So The The Rangers knew this and they also knew that by doing it this way, it would give them a better chance of acquiring that player.
In other words they cheated.

But my understanding is they weren't the only ones. Other clubs including Celtic, not sure about other Scottish clubs, did it but they took the opportunity of a deal with HMRC previously, Rangers didn't. The issue is if everyone realistically who would win the league was doing it then how was their an unfair advantage.

[CropleyWasGod]

A player is looking for £40,000 a week in his hand. Pay him through PAYE and you have to pay him £66,666 a week. Through EBTs £40,000. You can afford £40,000 a week but not £66,666. Using EBTs you have a player you could not afford and cheat society by not paying taxes.

It's nearer £75k, with Employers NI on top.

[FilipinoHibs]

It's nearer £75k, with Employers NI on top.

And employees NI too.

[lapsedhibee]

But my understanding is they weren't the only ones. Other clubs including Celtic, not sure about other Scottish clubs, did it but they took the opportunity of a deal with HMRC previously, Rangers didn't. The issue is if everyone realistically who would win the league was doing it then how was their an unfair advantage. You could say the same about Lance Armstrong. He shirley wasn't the only one doping but he explicitly contravened the rules of his sport while he won titles. Similarly, the old thes contravened the rules of their sport (by doing the side-letters thing) while they won titles. Off with their heads/stars/whatevs!

[CropleyWasGod]

I guess we get into a question of the interplay here between the liquidation process and the Finance Bill 2017. Put it this way, why would HMRC be prepared to accept a fraction of the pound in the liquidation process when they can exercise their likely powers under the Finance Bill 2017 in April 2019 to go after the individuals for the full amount of PAYE and NIC owed? The loans will remain outstanding at that point so fall squarely into the DR charge. Also unlikely to escape HMRC's attention that the individuals concerned are High Net Worth...

Deloitte's assertion of difficulty to enforce might be true but I don't believe it will stop HMRC. If I were one of the RFC EBT beneficiaries I would be more than a little concerned. Yesterday's ruling only serves to strengthen the HMRC hand. :cb

As has been said a few times, this case is not about HMRC recovering money. It's about establishing a principle.

They have already set their stall out by making a claim in the liquidation. As I understand the Finance Bill proposals (and, of course, they're not law yet, and will take time to fully understand), any attempt to recover tax and NI from recipients is mitigated by any settlement already made. I would expect that Barry Ferguson's lawyers will be taking the line that "it's already been the subject of a settlement..."

Anyways, this is all academic. The Daily Record has already told us who's due what. :greengrin

[CropleyWasGod]

And employees NI too.

The £75k includes Employees NI.

You take off the tax and Employees NI to arrive at the £40k.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170706/8ea4d63b92d70de109992a9cffa468bb.png
Dundee Utd fans group to release a response. We don't really have a group that speaks for us do we?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[bigwheel]

... but no "specialists" like B-W?

I know that Murray used his personal corporate tax advisors ...informally - seems he has protected them throughout this process

[JeMeSouviens]

But my understanding is they weren't the only ones. Other clubs including Celtic, not sure about other Scottish clubs, did it but they took the opportunity of a deal with HMRC previously, Rangers didn't. The issue is if everyone realistically who would win the league was doing it then how was their an unfair advantage.

Celtic had 1 ebt recipient (Juninho) but there was no side contract, the payment was disclosed to the sfa and the revenue and they then paid the tax when told it was due.

As far as I know, no other Scottish club had anything to do with them (although Vlad had other allegedly nefarious schemes in play over at the PBS).

[CropleyWasGod]

I know that Murray used his personal corporate tax advisors ...informally - seems he has protected them throughout this process

Ok, thanks.

I hope they've got PII in place. :greengrin

[Robinho08]

Livingston were hit with a five-point deduction and £10,000 fine for non-payment of tax back in 2014. The Oldco Buns should definitely be stripped of their titles during that tax dodging era.

[CentreLine]

From their view though, they have a set of corporate tax lawyers who were telling them they were OK. And two courts (until yesterday) agreed with them...I can't comment on the "two contracts" point mentioned elsewhere- as I don't know that detail..but I sort of recall you come from an accounting background - you will perhaps then acknowledge that as tax handling gets more complex it is often hard to get definitive views - even from the HMRC. Sometimes, you need to go with there advice you are getting and take the risk. Banks and Corporate Tax experts told them they were OK...On this occasion it has come up heads, when they bet tails...

One court agreed with them by a majority decision two from three judges. The next court decided they were guilty unanimously, hence the appeal by BDO. Yesterday's judgement was the Supreme Court verdict on that appeal. Unanimous by five judges. So out of 11 judges only two thought they were innocent of the charge. That's fairly conclusive.

[lord bunberry]

Two fans groups now making statements. It seems to be building the same way as when they were trying to shoehorn the tribute act straight back into the top division. This will snowball from here and fan pressure will be what makes the spfl take some sort of action.
Bring it on, the fun is only just starting.

[MichaelTheCelt]

Dundee Utd fans group to release a response. We don't really have a group that speaks for us do we?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hibees bounce posted this on twitter

https://twitter.com/HibeesBounce/status/882616887846293505 (sorry dunno how to embed tweets)

And I see they are discussing it on their forum.


All of us that coughed up our hard earned dough to watch Hibs did so not knowing the competition we were paying to watch our club participate in was rigged. Us the fans were cheated with this lot of charlatans.

Rangers FC who died now need to have all trophies removed from the history books.

Regan at the SFA and Doncaster at the SPFL need to go.

Celtic FC have put out a very good media release with regards to this.

Hibs must do likewise.

http://www.hibeesbounce.com/showthread.php?122924-Rangers-Cheating-And-Hibs-Response

Please excuse my possible ignorance on this not sure if they represent Hibs fans in any way shape or form if they have sway with the club or whatever but thought I'd share anyway.

[ancient hibee]

One court agreed with them by a majority decision two from three judges. The next court decided they were guilty unanimously, hence the appeal by BDO. Yesterday's judgement was the Supreme Court verdict on that appeal. Unanimous by five judges. So out of 11 judges only two thought they were innocent of the charge. That's fairly conclusive.
Not quite right.There was a second tax tribunal which also found for Rangers.Interesting that it was judges,often described as out of touch,who took what most of us would think was the common sense view.

[Deansy]

Ah, I get you.:aok:

Like I say, though, he is correct in what he says. The "contributions" were not earnings. But he's deflecting.

The follow-up question should be "but, SDM, it's not the contributions TO the trusts that are the issue here. Would you now agree with the Court that the payments BY the trusts are earnings?"

Cheers Mate - as I thought, Murray was more or less just 'Playing with words'. Again, another example of our 'media's complete and utter 'Dereliction of duty' !

[Eyrie]

So if there's not enough money in the Huns RIP pot to satisfy the tax man, can HMRC go after the guys who actually took the money to get the balance of the unpaid tax?

[OxoHibby]

So if there's not enough money in the Huns RIP pot to satisfy the tax man, can HMRC go after the guys who actually took the money to get the balance of the unpaid tax?

I have never understood why this hasn't happened. I know contractors in my line of work who were using ebts and are being personally being chased by hmrc and some in danger of losing their houses. Why haven't hmrc gone after the players who benefitted from avoiding tax?

[CropleyWasGod]

I have never understood why this hasn't happened. I know contractors in my line of work who were using ebts and are being personally being chased by hmrc and some in danger of losing their houses. Why haven't hmrc gone after the players who benefitted from avoiding tax?
Obviously, I don't know the details of the contractors you're talking about. But I'm guessing that they are among those who have gone down the Limited Company route. If that's the case, they are both employer and employee in the EBT scenario, which is different to RFC.

Without getting too technical about things, HMRC will probably have treated the EBT payments as "distributions" , which in turn will affect the individual's personal tax. That would be a reason for their being chased personally.

As for the RFC case, none of us can know that the recipients AREN'T being chased.... except for the Record, of course, which has it all sussed today...we can only speculate.

Again, though...and I'm a stuck record here...this case isn't about the money, it's about the tens of millions that can now be hoovered up from other clubs and companies.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://stripthetitles.wordpress.com/2017/07/06/send-this-letter-to-your-club/

Here is a template letter for anyone wishing to contact Hibs and find out exactly where we stand as a club on this.
Not exactly sure who at Hibs it should be sent to but probably Leeann or Colin Millar. Or just send to [email protected]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Is It On....]

Have to disagree with that.

At the time of the "offences", HMRC's policy was to hold an employer responsible for the faulty operation of its PAYE & NI system. Indeed, that's the approach they took in arriving at the amount due to them by Oldco. They have "grossed-up" net payments made to the recipients for tax and NI, and assessed the employer accordingly.

As mentioned earlier, there is draft legislation proposed to hold recipients responsible for a "loan charge" on any un-repaid EBT payments. It's still not clear how that charge will be calculated, so it's very difficult to say how the likes of Ferguson will be affected. Indeed, reading Deloitte's comments just now, they think it will be difficult to enforce for payments made prior to 2010.

Straw poll of 1 but when my old and new employers messed up my tax in 2003 / 2004 HMRC told me it was MY responsibility to have checked my tax and ensured I paid the correct amount. The accountants I work with think the side letter issue is really damaging because by not declaring the contracts to the governing body it looks like a deliberate attempt to avoid tax, hence tax evasion rather than avoidance. Given all these players were represented by 3rd parties it's difficult to portray that they were duped by Oldco into believing this was "above board". Only opinions but it would appear a bit murky and I certainly wouldn't be sleeping well if I was an EBT beneficiary.

[PatHead]

Straw poll of 1 but when my old and new employers messed up my tax in 2003 / 2004 HMRC told me it was MY responsibility to have checked my tax and ensured I paid the correct amount. The accountants I work with think the side letter issue is really damaging because by not declaring the contracts to the governing body it looks like a deliberate attempt to avoid tax, hence tax evasion rather than avoidance. Given all these players were represented by 3rd parties it's difficult to portray that they were duped by Oldco into believing this was "above board". Only opinions but it would appear a bit murky and I certainly wouldn't be sleeping well if I was an EBT beneficiary.

Wonder if they will sue their agents.

[Colr]

So if there's not enough money in the Huns RIP pot to satisfy the tax man, can HMRC go after the guys who actually took the money to get the balance of the unpaid tax?

Looks like it:

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/big-tax-case-former-rangers-stars-who-could-face-huge-tax-bill-1-4496731

The Ginger Judas is on the list.

[CropleyWasGod]

Looks like it:

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/teams/rangers/big-tax-case-former-rangers-stars-who-could-face-huge-tax-bill-1-4496731

The Ginger Judas is on the list.
That report is as speculative as the Record's. It uses words like "could" and "if" and "reports".

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

[lapsedhibee]

Again, though...and I'm a stuck record here...this case isn't about the money, it's about the tens of millions that can now be hoovered up from other clubs and companies.


Even though her main aim is tens of millions elsewhere, though, Her Maj shirley won't be completely uninterested in collecting the mere millions involved in The Thes case?

[MichaelTheCelt]

Sign and share it, every little helps. Got to make as much noise as possible regarding this.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/strip-the-titles

[Pedantic_Hibee]

Sign and share it, every little helps. Got to make as much noise as possible regarding this.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/strip-the-titles

Signed.

[Mantis Toboggan]

Although I agree Oldco were cheating *******s I cant get that excited about this.
Stripping titles now doesnt achieve much from our point of view. They got the glory at the time and thats really all that matters.
The best thing might be the leaps of logic that rangers supporters are going to have to try to perform if they try and argue that this doesnt reflect on the current club.

[Ronniekirk]

Sign and share it, every little helps. Got to make as much noise as possible regarding this.

https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/strip-the-titles

Signed but don't think it will happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk