Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bostonhibby

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigwheel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigwheel

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigwheel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldbutdim

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bostonhibby

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigwheel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigwheel

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Geo_1875

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigwheel

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Offside Trap

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigwheel

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SingHibs

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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

---

And employees NI too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenPJ

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Offside Trap

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SingHibs

And employees NI too.

---

The £75k includes Employees NI.

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

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...9cffa468bb.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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

... 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GreenPJ

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigwheel

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigwheel

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

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/sta...16887846293505 (sorry dunno how to embed tweets)

And I see they are discussing it on their forum.

Quote:

---

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/showthre...-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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CentreLine

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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' !

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OxoHibby

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

https://stripthetitles.wordpress.com...-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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Is It On....

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

Looks like it:

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...bill-1-4496731

The Ginger Judas is on the list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colr

Looks like it:

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Signed.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Signed but don't think it will happen


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

I think stripping titles would REALLY matter to The Rangers fans, as much as keeping 1872 and the treble stars on their shirts does. The SFA/SPFL will not have the balls to address this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Stripping the titles etc, will let teams know that cheats will suffer if caught. Think about it if the SFA grow a set and take them off Rangers then other teams including The Rangers will know they would get hammered if caught.
If we sit back and allow this to happen then it will always be an option for any team who think they can get away with it.

GGTTH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paisley Hibby

I think stripping titles would REALLY matter to The Rangers fans, as much as keeping 1872 and the treble stars on their shirts does. The SFA/SPFL will not have the balls to address this.

---

Not sure why but I genuinely believe the SFA have something to hide and don't want to address stripping titles as it may bring their dirty washing out in to the public domain.

GGTTH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paisley Hibby

I think stripping titles would REALLY matter to The Rangers fans, as much as keeping 1872 and the treble stars on their shirts does. The SFA/SPFL will not have the balls to address this.

---

Oh I totally agree the authorities are spineless.
Rangers would probably just ignore any ruling anyway. I mean the 5 stars thing is made up by them in the first place!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Is It On....

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.

---

Murray has already exonarated everyone he knows by stating that it was not tax evasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Is It On....

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.

---

Murray has already exonarated everyone he knows by stating that it was not tax evasion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PatHead

Wonder if they will sue their agents.

---

An accountant friend told me that with all of these tax "efficiency" schemes, there is always some small print along the lines that the scheme is considered to be within the law but a final determination can only be made through the courts. Basically saying it's up to the buyer to confirm the legality; if you buy into it you takes your chance and the vendor accepts no liability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brunswickbill

An accountant friend told me that with all of these tax "efficiency" schemes, there is always some small print along the lines that the scheme is considered to be within the law but a final determination can only be made through the courts. Basically saying it's up to the buyer to confirm the legality; if you buy into it you takes your chance and the vendor accepts no liability.

---

Yes your sold a tax dodge for a fee yet risk is yours and were told compliance exists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

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.

---

all very fine, for guys like you and Bigwheel trying to justify or explain the Oldco situation as you see it, or how some bigwig lawyers try to impose it but the Fact remains that 5, yes 5 High Heid yins at the Supreme Court (ye canny get any higher) decided that they were "at it". does not matter if a Solicitor wi' a Snawman's pipe in his mooth suddenly comes along.........

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monktonharp

all very fine, for guys like you and Bigwheel trying to justify or explain the Oldco situation as you see it, or how some bigwig lawyers try to impose it but the Fact remains that 5, yes 5 High Heid yins at the Supreme Court (ye canny get any higher) decided that they were "at it". does not matter if a Solicitor wi' a Snawman's pipe in his mooth suddenly comes along.........

---

Yes.Murray and Rangers were supported by old school system it is the reason that they were able to run up debt at that level until bank crisis forced those in charge to point blame elsewhere. Murray a charlatan but those who fall with him protect him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

If you won by illegal means you cheated. Rangers will hold 9 in a row as theirs no matter what. They are not only ones who have been exposed. Italians etc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southern hibby

Not sure why but I genuinely believe the SFA have something to hide and don't want to address stripping titles as it may bring their dirty washing out in to the public domain.

GGTTH

---

With the GFA it's not a case of 'If' they are hiding something - it's a case of 'HOW MUCH' they are hiding ?

It's not too outrageous a thought as previously no-one thought the Hun would be found-out !. Now that's happened, some of the 'Rats' on the good-ship GFA might take the view that if they're the 'First to reveal all' then whatever punishment to follow might be slightly less than all the other rats receive ??, Let's not kid ourselves, there's no 'Camaraderie' to be found amongst the likes of Regan, Doncaster & Co - and right now they're all caught between a rock and a very hard place and the next few days/weeks promise to be very interesting !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OxoHibby

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?

---

In that comment, you seem to me, to be putting up a smokescreen for the real offenders, the club that used or conned the people who pay our tax and gave those sly deals to players in order to attract them to RFC. don't make excuses for players who know what was going on btw. If they lost their house, their fancy car or their golf clubs I'd laugh ma heid aff.

had a closer look at your comments Oxo. apologise for implying that only the club were doing the cheating. the way I see it, the club were indeed using the system to the Max and the football players were , probably in tandem with their Agents quite happy to milk the system at the demise of the normal PAYE system which most hard working people abide by. It should not be ignored, that many of the players employed by Oldco at that time , were using the system and thereby cheating the system and should rightly be persued by HMRC. If , in some cases, it might end up that they might lose their hoose, or possessions then tough sheite. Ye Flee wi' the craws, ye get shot wi' the craws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

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?

---

Fairness would suggest not, of course.

Previous practice suggests they won't go after the players. The spirit of the new approach to tax avoidance suggests otherwise.



Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monktonharp

had a closer look at your comments Oxo. apologise for implying that only the club were doing the cheating. the way I see it, the club were indeed using the system to the Max and the football players were , probably in tandem with their Agents quite happy to milk the system at the demise of the normal PAYE system which most hard working people abide by. It should not be ignored, that many of the players employed by Oldco at that time , were using the system and thereby cheating the system and should rightly be persued by HMRC. If , in some cases, it might end up that they might lose their hoose, or possessions then tough sheite. Ye Flee wi' the craws, ye get shot wi' the craws.

---

That is exactly how it is! If the SFA/SPFL tile strip, watch the proverbial mud hit the fan! SDM and associates will map out where the bodies are hidden through the relative safety of their PR and media chums plus all those involved, will be queuing up to stick the next person in.

justice must be served upon all those who rigged our game and brought it into disrepute. Until then, we cannot heal nor move on.

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...e244f123f0.jpg
Well done Dons fans. Stewards tried unsuccessfully to take the banners from them. Every club should protest this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...e244f123f0.jpg
Well done Dons fans. Stewards tried unsuccessfully to take the banners from them. Every club should protest this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

:not worth

Deffo mate, I hope to see a lot more of this from supporters of other clubs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southern hibby

Stripping the titles etc, will let teams know that cheats will suffer if caught. Think about it if the SFA grow a set and take them off Rangers then other teams including The Rangers will know they would get hammered if caught.
If we sit back and allow this to happen then it will always be an option for any team who think they can get away with it.

GGTTH

---

I don't think it will. Much in the same way Lance Armstrong refuses the acknowledge the stripping of his tour wins the Rangers fans will still claim they won 54 titles, the club probably will too. If they keep insisting they were demoted when that is factually inaccurate what chance do you have of them respecting a retrospective punishment such as titles being stripped. They just continue to share pictures of them with the trophies as proof they won them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/201...e244f123f0.jpg
Well done Dons fans. Stewards tried unsuccessfully to take the banners from them. Every club should protest this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

Good on them, hope we see more of this at grounds throughout the season.

Hope we as fans get something organised to protest the criminals that were at Ibrox.

I don't mean to give our club stick from a corporate level, as I know how difficult these things are, but I think the fans would really appreciate a statement of some kind from the club. Even one that minces its words quite well, like "in the event of a review, we will monitor developments very closely, and will not make further comment until such a time as further information emerges."

Statement from Dundee Utd fans.
https://m.facebook.com/arabtrust1909...54852872167992


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Statement from Dundee Utd fans.
https://m.facebook.com/arabtrust1909...54852872167992


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I notice that they are using their "Associate Director". Maybe this is something we can use our own Fans' Reps for?

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...ttle-1-4497193

Good to see Hearts referred to in this article. But why is only the 2006 Scottish Cup final mentioned? I guess that was when they were paying (or as it turned out, NOT paying) truly silly wages?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by G B Young

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...ttle-1-4497193

Good to see Hearts referred to in this article. But why is only the 2006 Scottish Cup final mentioned? I guess that was when they were paying (or as it turned out, NOT paying) truly silly wages?

---

Crucially, that article omits the side-letters issue (which sets the Thes case apart from all others, including Hearts). And to suggest that Celtic 'investigating the possibility of using EBTs' is somehow comparable to what actually went on at the Thes is ludicrous. The SMSM is truly pathetic.

Whether titles get stripped or not 'real fitba people'ken what happened so let the old club keep them.The only good that can come out of this is the destruction of the organisation who governed this era and continue to dodge the issue.They had no credibility prior to this pish and now must be dismantled completely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ian cruise

I don't think it will. Much in the same way Lance Armstrong refuses the acknowledge the stripping of his tour wins the Rangers fans will still claim they won 54 titles, the club probably will too. If they keep insisting they were demoted when that is factually inaccurate what chance do you have of them respecting a retrospective punishment such as titles being stripped. They just continue to share pictures of them with the trophies as proof they won them.

---

If the authorities take wins away from them they can say what they want but History will acknowledge they cheated.

All this they won't except it cr8p, means nothing, they need brought into line with the laws of the game.

GGTTH

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southern hibby

If the authorities take wins away from them they can say what they want but History will acknowledge they cheated.

All this they won't except it cr8p, means nothing, they need brought into line with the laws of the game.

GGTTH

---

:agree: When the whole thing blew up in their faces Fat Sally was on the tellybox giving it 'Rangers won't accept being demoted/relegated/whatever'. **** what they'll accept or say they'll accept.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I notice that they are using their "Associate Director". Maybe this is something we can use our own Fans' Reps for?

---

I'd be interested to know what our fans reps thought of this issue. It would be nice if they could come on the board and tell us the club's thoughts on the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Statement from Dundee Utd fans.
https://m.facebook.com/arabtrust1909...54852872167992


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

All very true but we all know the fans of other clubs would be as well shouting at the moon. The Scottish football authorities, press, tv etc. will do nothing to damage The Rangers. It's a shocking reflection on Scottish football that cheating on this level is swept under the carpet and to cap it all the media make out that The Rangers are the victims.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I'd be interested to know what our fans reps thought of this issue. It would be nice if they could come on the board and tell us the club's thoughts on the issue.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

[emoji106] if enough fans want to see action / an expression of their views directly to the club then this is exactly what I felt the position would serve.

If the people who run the club have a position on something like this they should be sharing what the club feels and why. No better outlet than our reps.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Real Emerald

All very true but we all know the fans of other clubs would be as well shouting at the moon. The Scottish football authorities, press, tv etc. will do nothing to damage The Rangers. It's a shocking reflection on Scottish football that cheating on this level is swept under the carpet and to cap it all the media make out that The Rangers are the victims.

---

Disagree. If noise hadn't been made before, The Thes would have been in the top flight of Scottish football from the very first minute of their existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bostonhibby

[emoji106] if enough fans want to see action / an expression of their views directly to the club then this is exactly what I felt the position would serve.

If the people who run the club have a position on something like this they should be sharing what the club feels and why. No better outlet than our reps.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

---

I'll try set up a poll later (if I can work out how to do it) to see what fans on here think. May just be the regulars on this thread that care.
If anyone else want to do it first because I'm on my phone feel free.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bostonhibby

[emoji106] if enough fans want to see action / an expression of their views directly to the club then this is exactly what I felt the position would serve.

If the people who run the club have a position on something like this they should be sharing what the club feels and why. No better outlet than our reps.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

---

Shouldn't it be the other way around in this situation?

The fans reps should be communicating to the Board what the fans think.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Shouldn't it be the other way around in this situation?

The fans reps should be communicating to the Board what the fans think.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

---

That's what I think. Previously it felt like it was the other way round. This is the perfect issue for them to step up.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Disagree. If noise hadn't been made before, The Thes would have been in the top flight of Scottish football from the very first minute of their existence.

---

That's true the fans did play a part in that but are now being blamed for getting a club that ceased to exist 'relegated', how does that work? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for as much noise being made about this from as many places as possible, I'm just making the point that nothing more will be done to them, unfortunately. Hope I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Shouldn't it be the other way around in this situation?

The fans reps should be communicating to the Board what the fans think.

Sent from my SM-A510F using Tapatalk

---

That's what my first paragraph was getting at.



Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

Does anyone know how to set up a poll?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

Does anyone know how to set up a poll?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I can't do it on my phone either. Stuck on a train and no lap top.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bostonhibby

I can't do it on my phone either. Stuck on a train and no lap top.

Sent from my SM-J320FN using Tapatalk

---

I've got my iPad now but I just don't know how to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ozyhibby

I've got my iPad now but I just don't know how to do it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

---

I'll do one, hang on a sec ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

I'll do one, hang on a sec ...

---

Magic, thank you.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...dict-1-4497375


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Let's not forget that the EBT system not only allowed them to buy players that they otherwise couldn't, it also meant they had more resources to buy the best from their competitors and weaken them. How many young Scottish players ended up at ibrox keeping the bench warm and not getting the game time and experience they'd have gotten elsewhere?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hibrandenburg

Let's not forget that the EBT system not only allowed them to buy players that they otherwise couldn't, it also meant they had more resources to buy the best from their competitors and weaken them. How many young Scottish players ended up at ibrox keeping the bench warm and not getting the game time and experience they'd have gotten elsewhere?

---

From Hibs alone

Murray
Miller
Thomson
Shiels (indirectly)
Latapy (Sort of)
Whittaker

They go bust and we out do them to get Claros.

The ridiculous thing is that it's not just the current incarnation of Rangers that complain about being relegated or demoted, but the Media and some of our esteemed footballing bosses have said the same thing.

Isn't it great to have Rangers 'back', etc.


Not possible, they're long since dead, what is playing at Ibrox is 'The Rangers', and they haven't won a single major trophy.


Admittedly, they look and sound disgustingly similar, but that's about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Keekaboo

The ridiculous thing is that it's not just the current incarnation of Rangers that complain about being relegated or demoted, but the Media and some of our esteemed footballing bosses have said the same thing.

Isn't it great to have Rangers 'back', etc.


Not possible, they're long since dead, what is playing at Ibrox is 'The Rangers', and they haven't won a single major trophy.


Admittedly, they look and sound disgustingly similar, but that's about it.

---

And they managed to purchase a 50k seater stadium and training ground for £5m, a sum that also included a payment to the liquidator which was around £2m I seem to remember. That on top of all the creditors and HMRC loosing millions. They march on as if nothing has happened except having the misfortune of being 'relegated' by the nasty other clubs. The whole thing stinks but they will get away with it and still be portrayed as the victims by themselves and the media. Utterly ridiculous what they're getting away with.

http://www.scotsman.com/sport/footba...tles-1-4497710


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk