Anyone fancy dissecting Alastair Johnston's statement made via RST? I started reading but stopped when I realised that they will never accept accountability no matter what. Loathsome club no matter its constitution then and now
Printable View
Anyone fancy dissecting Alastair Johnston's statement made via RST? I started reading but stopped when I realised that they will never accept accountability no matter what. Loathsome club no matter its constitution then and now
From RST
Quote:
The Rangers Supporters Trust has been in correspondence with former Rangers Chairman Alistair Johnston and he has kindly agreed that we publish a synopsis of his thoughts on a variety of salient points in order that fans can have a better appreciation of the facts.
Let me explain my personal motivation here. If in any way I can spread my sentiments, which are based on a combination of knowledge of the facts, interpretation of events, and a philosophical understanding of culpability as it relates to punishment, that in some way would cause the Tribunal that is sitting to determine the destiny of Rangers heritage to pause for thought and provide more objective consideration of the case before them, then my agenda will be to a greater extent served. I just can’t sit by on the side-lines and watch a miscarriage of justice be activated by a kangaroo court. It is not my personal objective to denigrate the football institutions of Scotland, but their actions and words go a long way to influencing public opinion as to the interpretation of the events that have taken place and how members of the public frame their own opinions as a result.
The whole process has been established to satisfy a self-serving agenda by vested interests in the SPL. The SFA, however, is the supreme governing body of Scottish football and should invoke its ultimate authority to forestall the inevitable inequity that will ensue if the capital punishment decision is left to the SPL.
The SFA is complicit in all of this because they have not at least up until now had the courage to publicly acknowledge that they either ignored or did not really understand the well-publicized structure surrounding the relationship that Rangers FC had with certain of its players.
I have been reviewing my files from around April 2011 relating to the annual routine of Rangers FC applying for and being granted a license to participate in organized football in Scotland. Because of the publicity surrounding our club at the time, the SFA wrote to us asking for more details about the public speculation concerning our financial and tax situation. The latter obviously referenced the impact of the EBT schemes as creating a potential taxation liability. The club responded accordingly and provided details, as it had done in previous years, by declaring player salaries, bonuses, benefits, etc., but also payments made to a Remuneration Trust. The SFA compliance officers must have known, both from the description and context of the reports, that such expenditures had some connection to player compensation. However, without any further investigation at the time, Rangers FC received its SFA license to compete in the 2011/2012 season. Rangers, therefore, were entitled to believe that they were not in breach of any SFA regulation requiring reporting of player compensation. If there was any question that the essence of these payments to a Remuneration Trust could have endangered the proud historical record of our team, then why was it not raised long before then.
At best, the SFA is relying on inconsistent interpretation of its own rules, and to do this retrospectively is totally at odds with underlying principles of equity in the law. A lawyer representing Celtic recently was successful in having charges against that club dropped because of the inadequacy of the SFA's prescribed rules, regulations, and sanctions. The same principle should apply here. If the SFA now decide to adopt a more focused evaluation of the data they request from its members in order to be granted a license, they should ensure that the legislation upon which they rely for enforcement and the corresponding sanctions are more transparent and predictable.
Let me also address the prevailing mood in certain quarters that seems determined to pile on to Rangers when they are vulnerable as confusion over the current structure and authority has allowed allegations and conjecture to trump reality as the institution of the club seems now to be a pawn where rhetoric, no matter how real or substantiated, prevails. Inflammatory and emotional words have been used and recited to justify this rush to judgment which I believe are fundamentally ill founded and out of proportion to the realities of the events that transpired.
First, when the previous football commission reported on EBT’s in a very high profile statement, they took the view that if Rangers was indeed guilty of structuring EBT schemes that transgressed the law or the rules of the relevant federations, then this was “close to match fixing.” This is the headline that in my opinion prompted the determination to slay Rangers with capital punishment, which in the case of our club would retrospectively alter the records of our historical achievements of which we are all so proud. “Match fixing” has connotations that correctly relate to bribery and corruption involving players and referees, fielding players that did not meet the criteria and qualifications of the governing bodies, e.g. they were over the age limit, or they were registered to another club, or they were playing while they had been banned for previous misdemeanours, etc., etc. Rangers has never been accused of or been remotely involved in any activity that would justify the terminology that whatever transgressions they might be found guilty of perpetrating was close to “match fixing.”
Secondly, and this is really important to the extent that it is a phrase that is prominent in the rhetoric of those whose objective is to crucify Rangers, and that is “financial doping.” The term as I interpret it is an attempt to relate an activity that is outlawed generally throughout the world of sport and regarded as cheating and taking undue advantage of banned stimulants and conjure up a connection with the financial mechanics of a club that has acknowledged that it in the clear light of day and very transparently embraced the use of Remuneration Trusts. Our opponents maintain, illogically, that without the use of EBT’s Rangers would have been unable to afford the quality of players that they fielded and thus gained an advantage over other clubs against which they competed. As an aside, it is interesting to recognize that there has been no complaints about Rangers fielding such players in the Champions League, the Europa League, etc., but the current accusations are being promoted not coincidentally by other members of the SPL who are now attempting to act as judge, jury and executioner against their consistently most potent rival.
The reality of the situation is that Sir David Murray, who was intimately involved in the architecture of these efforts to organize the business in a way to mitigate taxation which is totally legitimate and acceptable under all tenets of the law, would have signed and paid for these very same players whether or not EBT schemes were in effect or not. The only difference being one which only has a financial consequence, i.e. it would have increased Rangers reliance on bank debt. During most of the period under investigation by the upcoming SPL Tribunal, he as well as his company enjoyed a very mutually productive relationship with the Bank of Scotland. The Rangers Board, of which I was a member, consistently believed that if and when the debt reached a level where the bank became uncomfortable, Sir David as he did in 2004 when he underwrote a subscription for Rangers shares and thus eliminated much of the bank debt, would be able and willing to repeat this recovery effort. Whether or not he ultimately would have done so is now irrelevant, but what is clear is that “financial doping” is not and could never be construed as describing a situation where a club extends its credit facilities with a recognized financial institution. The level of the debt that a club is willing to tolerate, whether you are Celtic or Manchester United, is determined by that club in conjunction with the lender. Whether the amount involved is £10 million or £600 million is irrelevant to the principle.
On the other hand, I have to acknowledge that the malfeasance created by Craig Whyte when he manifestly used funds that did not belong to Rangers, i.e. taxes withheld from employees’ wage checks that rightfully should have been transmitted to HMRC, which avoided him having to invest his own money contrary to his expressed commitment to the Rangers stakeholders to do otherwise, and being either unwilling or unable (or both) to raise any credit to invest into Rangers, exposed our club as a victim of what could be loosely determined as “financial doping.” Thus, Whyte was able to pay the club’s operating expenses including player wages, but it was Rangers which suffered by being ultimately forced into liquidation.
Keep in mind, which is not always clear in the molasses of misinformation that is currently circulating, Rangers went into liquidation and suffered all the penalties and sanctions of which we are now aware, solely because of Mr. Whyte’s failure to pay HMRC the withholding tax that the club collected during the short term of his disgraceful proprietorship.
Finally, I would hope that the panel which has been charged with investigating Rangers' activities will draw a large circle around a universe of relevant reference points that should be considered in assessing the magnitude of the allegations made against the Club. For example, was the accepted practice of mitigating players overall tax liability utilized by several of the biggest clubs in Europe by drawing up separate contracts segregating off their image rights, which essentially denied that any compensation related thereto was a function of their obligation to play football, any different in principle than the alleged actions of Rangers FC?
And of course, the little matter of £24m of unpaid tax on the EBT payments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnston
I am not sure they have been treated differently than anyone else would have been Spike, what more could have been done on the evidence so far available? They have certainly not gotten what they wanted other than merely surviving in the SFL so I cant see where any of the outcomes reached thus far have been desirable to them.Quote:
Originally Posted by FalkirkHibby
The liquidators have still to look at things and the Tax tribunal is still to report back, about which HMRC may still have something to say and I would say Old Rangers have not walked away from this yet. Add in the investigation into the breach of SFA/UEFA/FIFA rules and this may still get more uncomfortable for the Hun yet.
I'll pick out this little paragraph ..Quote:
Originally Posted by moff1875
"I have been reviewing my files from around April 2011 relating to the annual routine of Rangers FC applying for and being granted a license to participate in organized football in Scotland."
So you're ignoring the 10 previous years where you were pulling the wool over everyone's eyes then ..
"Because of the publicity surrounding our club at the time, the SFA wrote to us asking for more details about the public speculation concerning our financial and tax situation."
So once the game was up ...
"The latter obviously referenced the impact of the EBT schemes as creating a potential taxation liability."
No s**t Sherlock ..
"The club responded accordingly and provided details, as it had done in previous years, by declaring player salaries, bonuses, benefits, etc."
Fair enough ..
"but also payments made to a Remuneration Trust."
Hang on .. this sounds like you hadn't previously mentioned these payments ..
"The SFA compliance officers must have known, both from the description and context of the reports, that such expenditures had some connection to player compensation."
So you are basing this assumption on the fact that an inept SFA (your words, not mine) were able to make a connection between player salaries and a previously unannounced Trust Scheme .. a bit presumptious to say the least ..
"However, without any further investigation at the time, Rangers FC received its SFA license to compete in the 2011/2012 season."
Hold on there bald eagle .. are you complaining about the SFA bending the rules for Rangers ..
"Rangers, therefore, were entitled to believe that they were not in breach of any SFA regulation requiring reporting of player compensation."
Ah, the old "I thought it was okay to do it" defence .. best of luck with that one ..
"If there was any question that the essence of these payments to a Remuneration Trust could have endangered the proud historical record of our team, then why was it not raised long before then."
Errr .. see previous response regarding the "SFA" and "bending over backwards" ..
:agree: So the downside of outright cheating is loss of the swag they acquired ? If they applied this logic to burglars there would be anarchy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
IMHO Green making such a song and dance about stripping of titles just forces the hand of the SPL. Cos, if they didn't strip them after all this, they would be seen as backing down or being influenced by the forces of darkness :confused: The Huns have signed their own warrant :greengrin
I fear the worst when they're back in the SPL or come visiting in the Cup. They're being whipped up into a right old frenzy by Green and the manky hordes will feel they have a few scores to settle. It's gonna be ugly.
Will be the same when they visit Pittodrie and Tannadice aswell id imagine :agree:Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiberlin
That will be nothing though compared to what Glasgow will be like if they play Celtic in the cup this year. Would be absolute chaos before/after that.
"player compensation" sounds suspiciously like employee renumeration. How thick actually are these people? Compensation is not a loan by any definition.
SFA rules of registration state "All payments made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement. No payment for his playing activities may be made to the player through a third party."
Quote:
Originally Posted by StevieC
Johnston is also being disingenous when he says that the payments by Huns RIP to the EBT were declared in their accounts. The issue here is not those payments, but the subsequent payments by the EBT to players and whether those payments were part of their wages for playing for Huns RIP.
With the FTT decision to be announced in October, I'd guess that the SPL enquiry conclusion and punishment will be delayed until after then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pitlochry hibee
It's going to be fun.
Rangers Tax-Case@rangerstaxcase For all the PR 'fight back' in the mainstream media from the ex-RFC establishment- Traynor, Johnston etc. the key facts remain clear...
Rangers' directors knew their implementation of EBT scheme was illegal and went to great lengths to hide how it worked from SPL & govt.
That Charles Green interview is staggering. Talks about how they were never an SPL club, and five minutes later talks about taking Rangers "back to the top".
Don't forget that they own all the titles as well.............Quote:
Originally Posted by Northernhibee
I hear there could be stripping of knight hoods and poss jail time!!
They must have thought it legal at some point or else why use it? Brown paper bags would have been safer.Quote:
Originally Posted by grunt
They were advised by Murray International's tax people that EBT's were a legitimate tax avoidance measure. IIRC, that advice was based on a scheme devised by..... (his name is somewhere in the dark depths of this thread)... who had had "success" with them elsewhere.Quote:
Originally Posted by sahib
Tax avoidance schemes are devised all the time (see Carr, J. ). Some are legitimate, some are challenged by HMRC. Part of the reason they do spring up is that UK Tax Law is ridiculously complex; it then becomes a game between highly-paid experts on the one side, and civil servants on the other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
Is it not reasonably straightforward in that such a "loan" is a benefit in kind and should be declared as such?
All Rangers statements have admitted this, despite in the same breath also claiming that they did nothing wrong. English clubs had already settled and binned this scheme years ago. You would think that the Hun would take a hint from this.
Normally, if an employer makes a loan to an employee, there is deemed to be a benefit in kind if the interest rate is less than the "official" or market rate. The employee is taxed on the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
However, a loan is of course repayable, which is not what happened here. It's complicated by the fact that the Trust made the loan to people who were probably not its employees.
So... to answer your question, it's not straightforward :greengrin
It would be straightforward, though, if the loanees repaid the money.......:cb
If the loan is "written off" does it not then become taxable and incumbent on the individual who recieved the "loan" to settle the tax liabilities?Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
I do think that the statements of Dodds, Boumsong and now Johnson's comments that payments were "compensation" renders the discussion regarding whether the payments were legitimate EBT loans largely irrelevant. Also why did Johnson claim that the SFA were made aware for season 2011-2012 (coincidently only weeks after Murray sold to Whyte) and not ten years earlier, when they actually began using the scheme?
It appears to this poster that they have taken a very complicated and intricate tax avoidance sheme and made a total breek arse of it.
Same as the old monkey with his paw in the jar of peanuts...too greedy and stupid to let go of the loot to get his paw out and scarper before he was caught :greengrinQuote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
It would do if they were employees. That's part of the issue, though. Were they employed by the trust?Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaiser1962
And, your professional opinion, as expressed in your final paragraph, is right on the freaking button.....:top marks
What do you think has caused the delays in the tax case verdict?
1. every instance of "EBTising" would have to be reviewed by the Tribunal. That takes time.Quote:
Originally Posted by s.a.m
2. OldCo's tax advisers would have stopped working for them some time ago, as they wouldn't have been paid. That would delay, even stop, the dialogue that needs to happen in these situations.
Thanks for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod
He references the tribunal finding their use of ebt's as close to match fixing. That's incorrect, that particular charge, iirc, was aimed at the deliberate non-payment of tax by Craig Whyte.
:agree: I don't think that the EBTs have been scrutinised by anybody "official", other than HMRC.Quote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
He goes on to sayQuote:
Originally Posted by matty_f
Quote:
Rangers went into liquidationand suffered all the penalties and sanctions of which we are now aware, solelybecause of Mr. Whyte’s failure to pay HMRC the withholding tax that the clubcollected during the short term of his disgraceful proprietorship.
so he knows full well that the tribunal (which he inaccurately claims was a 'commission') didn't consider the EBTs.
Like Green's comments his statement is full of inconsistenies and half-truths - that's the real reason why they won't appear before the tribunal, because they'd get found out.
Was'nt part of the deal struck between Green and the S F A, to get the OldCo license transferred to NewCo, that they would assist any SFA/SPL investigations, accept their findings and not challenge any sanctions in the Courts ?
It is all about playing to the gallery of demented bears who believe their Club should be untouchable ! - They are,of course, right in that respect. :greengrin