Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

**green glory** · 14-03-2012 11:55 AM

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...ying-field/906

Part 3.

***greenginger*** · 14-03-2012 11:55 AM

Our captain Ian Murray went over to the Dark Side in 2005 right in the middle of the scam payments period.

I would not imagine his salary was augmented by EBT contributions but you never Know.

However , I am sure he must have heard talk about the dressing room about who was getting what.

Anyone on here know Murray well enough to pop a couple of questions ?

**jgl07** · 14-03-2012 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by greenginger

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Our captain Ian Murray went over to the Dark Side in 2005 right in the middle of the scam payments period.

I would not imagine his salary was augmented by EBT contributions but you never Know.

However , I am sure he must have heard talk about the dressing room about who was getting what.

Anyone on here know Murray well enough to pop a couple of questions ?

I would imagine that the EBT payments were reserved for the top (mostly overseas) players. In many cases their agents negotiate an 'after tax' wage that forced a number of clubs to go down the EBT route.

**Part/Time Supporter** · 14-03-2012 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by green glory

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...ying-field/906

Part 3.

No doubt he will now be in the bad books of Celtc fans for daring to suggest that they are part of the problem.

**green glory** · 14-03-2012 12:15 PM

More from Alex Thomson's Twitter.

https://twitter.com/alextomo/status/179909629759864832

***greenginger*** · 14-03-2012 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by jgl07

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I would imagine that the EBT payments were reserved for the top (mostly overseas) players. In many cases their agents negotiate an 'after tax' wage that forced a number of clubs to go down the EBT route.

If the " after tax " wage is not on the contract registered with the SFA then additional payments must have been made.

***CropleyWasGod*** · 14-03-2012 12:19 PM

Originally Posted by green glory

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thoms...ying-field/906

Part 3.

This is so refreshing. Love it.

***Seveno*** · 14-03-2012 12:20 PM

Even if the EBT scheme was not illegal, it was clearly used to entice players to Ibrox with the certainty of receiving substantial money.

It is downright immoral. They were cheating the taxman, the honest tax payer and the SPL. I wish someone would ask this of Murray - do you think it was a moral thing to do ?

***Seveno*** · 14-03-2012 12:25 PM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is so refreshing. Love it.

I vote that we dump Doncaster and make Thomson the Chief Exec of the SPL.

***JimBHibees*** · 14-03-2012 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

This is so refreshing. Love it.

That is a fantastic read and spot on in every way.

**FranckSuzy** · 14-03-2012 12:33 PM

Wonder if he'll turn his attention to Hearts and their 'finances'?

***CropleyWasGod*** · 14-03-2012 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Seveno

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Even if the EBT scheme was not illegal, it was clearly used to entice players to Ibrox with the certainty of receiving substantial money.

It is downright immoral. They were cheating the taxman, the honest tax payer and the SPL. I wish someone would ask this of Murray - do you think it was a moral thing to do ?

Playing Devil's Advocate here, a little bit, but also putting some historical perspective on it.

Minimising tax is not a crime, as long as it is within the law. Whether it is immoral depends on your own morality. For example, your work giving you a mobile phone worth £200, rather than a pay rise, is going to cost you less tax and your employer less NI. Minimising tax? Yes. Illegal? No. Immoral? I doubt anyone would consider it so.

At the time, RFC and SDM, like many other football clubs and businesses, started using EBT's because it was reckoned to be the latest way of minimising tax. A client of mine, a wee property development business, with no overseas employees or high earning staff, was approached with a view to using one. Personally, I avoided them, on the basis that "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is....."

Now.... illegal they weren't. Tax saving they were. Immoral? That's where the argument starts. I have no doubt that RFC went into EBT's, on the basis of the advice they were given, and in the belief that they were a legitimate means of saving tax. Is that immoral?

Or... comparing the mobile phone/EBT cases, is the difference down to the size of the issues?

***Seveno*** · 14-03-2012 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by FranckSuzy

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Wonder if he'll turn his attention to Hearts and their 'finances'?

What ? Surely you don't think that there could be anything untoward with our friends at the PBS ?

***Seveno*** · 14-03-2012 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Playing Devil's Advocate here, a little bit, but also putting some historical perspective on it.

Minimising tax is not a crime, as long as it is within the law. Whether it is immoral depends on your own morality. For example, your work giving you a mobile phone worth £200, rather than a pay rise, is going to cost you less tax and your employer less NI. Minimising tax? Yes. Illegal? No. Immoral? I doubt anyone would consider it so.

At the time, RFC and SDM, like many other football clubs and businesses, started using EBT's because it was reckoned to be the latest way of minimising tax. A client of mine, a wee property development business, with no overseas employees or high earning staff, was approached with a view to use one. Personally, I avoided them, on the basis that "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is....."

Now.... illegal they weren't. Tax saving they were. Immoral? That's where the argument starts. I have no doubt that RFC went into EBT's, on the basis of the advice they were given, and in the belief that they were a legitimate means of saving tax. Is that immoral?

Or... comparing the mobile phone/EBT cases, is the difference down to the size of the issues?

The difference is that the EBT is pretending to be something that it isn't. It is set up as a discretionary trust when we all know that discretion does not come into it. The players knew in advance what they were going to get and that they would never be asked to pay it back.

***RyeSloan*** · 14-03-2012 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by WindyMiller

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A big boy done it and ran away!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17364257

Pathetic, truely pathetic.

So someone was raising £24m using future ticket proceeds from the club that Murray still owned and he knew nothing about it. Aye right.

He almost gets to the point in the end...he left the club high and dry and in need of substantial personal investment from the person who took over. He failed to make sure that person had the funds available.

It's quite clear Murray is at fault for not only in allowing Rangers to get into the state it was but also in selling it to someone that didn't have the required funding to 'save' the club from the disaster course Murray had put it on......

***CropleyWasGod*** · 14-03-2012 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by Seveno

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The difference is that the EBT is pretending to be something that it isn't. It is set up as a discretionary trust when we all know that discretion does not come into it. The players knew in advance what they were going to get and that they would never be asked to pay it back.

That's easy to say in hindsight, since we are all now in tune with what an EBT is.

At the time, though.... the players wouldn't consider the morality of it, they're only interested in what they get in their pocket.

Did RFC? We will probably never know that. Chances are it was sold to them as "cast-iron", with no caveats about the potential implications. Even if it weren't, and they were fully aware of the implications, chances are they have said "sod it... we will deal with that if HMRC ever knock on the door"... that is a common stance that businesses take.

Of course, given SDM's latest diatribe about CW, if they lose the BTC, he will no doubt claim that he was "duped" by his advisers.

***aljo7-0*** · 14-03-2012 12:50 PM

Originally Posted by Seveno

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The difference is that the EBT is pretending to be something that it isn't. It is set up as a discretionary trust when we all know that discretion does not come into it. The players knew in advance what they were going to get and that they would never be asked to pay it back.

You've got to assume that the players in question and/or their agents were told about the EBT and the payments they would be receiving from it before they signed. They presumably would have raised a doubt about the discretionary issue and what guarantee they would have that they would be paid as without any sort of guarantee they were only ever going to get the pay under the direct contract with RFC. Were there any sort of back letters or similar regarding these payments that might not amount to a second contract but were promissary in nature and effectively guaranteed payments from a discretionary trust? I dunno but part of me can see John Grieg giving an impassioned speech about the Mighty Rangers and their history etc etc along with a nudge and wink to say it will be paid. Still think a foreign player would want some sort of written guarantee.

I don't know exactly how an agent gets paid for negotiating a deal for his client but if it is on any sort of commission (on salary) type basis you would think they must have been aware of the future discretionary payments that their client would receive. It all smells really.

Making this all up as I go along of course but it gets you thinking.

***Seveno*** · 14-03-2012 12:55 PM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's easy to say in hindsight, since we are all now in tune with what an EBT is.

At the time, though.... the players wouldn't consider the morality of it, they're only interested in what they get in their pocket.

Did RFC? We will probably never know that. Chances are it was sold to them as "cast-iron", with no caveats about the potential implications. Even if it weren't, and they were fully aware of the implications, chances are they have said "sod it... we will deal with that if HMRC ever knock on the door"... that is a common stance that businesses take.

Of course, given SDM's latest diatribe about CW, if they lose the BTC, he will no doubt claim that he was "duped" by his advisers.

Well I don't expect most football players to really understand the issues and their agents are unlikely to discuss the finer points of morality.

It is David Murray that I was holding to account. He will certainly have been fully aware of the issues and clearly chose to ignore them. But then, if you own houses in Edinburgh, Perthshire, Jersey, New Zealand and France, whilst owing the Bank £800m, I'm sure he had other things to occupy his mind.

***Seveno*** · 14-03-2012 12:57 PM

The story goes that a 'back letter' was found and that is what HMRC have been using as ammunition. Might just be wishful thinking on someone's part but let's all keep our fingers crossed.

***CropleyWasGod*** · 14-03-2012 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by Seveno

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Well I don't expect most football players to really understand the issues and their agents are unlikely to discuss the finer points of morality.

It is David Murray that I was holding to account. He will certainly have been fully aware of the issues and clearly chose to ignore them. But then, if you own houses in Edinburgh, Perthshire, Jersey, New Zealand and France, whilst owing the Bank £800m, I'm sure he had other things to occupy his mind.

I'm not disagreeing with you in any of this, by the way.

It's always part of my job, as it is in yours, to point out to clients the risks involved in any course of action. To do that, I have to play Devil's Advocate a lot to tease out the real issues.

However, a lot of what I have said will be the "defence" used by SDM (and, of course, all the other directors. As Cav says, this is about collective responsibility )

**JeMeSouviens** · 14-03-2012 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Seveno

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The story goes that a 'back letter' was found and that is what HMRC have been using as ammunition. Might just be wishful thinking on someone's part but let's all keep our fingers crossed.

The Sun allege that this is one of them:

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3994/contractb.jpg

***CropleyWasGod*** · 14-03-2012 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by JeMeSouviens

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

The Sun allege that this is one of them:

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/3994/contractb.jpg

It could be anything, cobbled together by anyone, of course.

It could be pretty damning, though.

If it is "real", this is "only" damning in terms of the SFA/SPL issues.

HMRC would be interested in both this and the workings of the Trust itself. As I understand things (and this may be urban myth, or maybe I dreamt it lol), the Tribunal have to look at every individual's situation in turn before they can come to a decision. Given the number of players (and, perhaps, executives) involved, one can understand why it is taking so long.

**TheEastTerrace** · 14-03-2012 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It could be anything, cobbled together by anyone, of course.

It could be pretty damning, though.

If it is "real", this is "only" damning in terms of the SFA/SPL issues.

HMRC would be interested in both this and the workings of the Trust itself. As I understand things (and this may be urban myth, or maybe I dreamt it lol), the Tribunal have to look at every individual's situation in turn before they can come to a decision. Given the number of players (and, perhaps, executives) involved, one can understand why it is taking so long.

CWG - I get the feeling RTC blog is keeping it's powder dry for an opportune moment to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons with some implicating evidence. Bit of chatter on Twitter today gave that impression.

***CropleyWasGod*** · 14-03-2012 02:44 PM

Originally Posted by moff1875

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

CTG - I get the feeling RTC blog is keeping it's powder dry for an opportune moment to really throw the cat amongst the pigeons with some implicating evidence. Bit of chatter on Twitter today gave that impression.

Interesting.

Problem is, as we've seen with that "contract", that it is very easy to throw something out there and make out that it's "evidence".

I'm not doubting the RTC blog, they have been on the case for a long time now, but they can be "duped" (there's that word again, thanks Sir David) as well.

To paraphrase Kevin Keegan, though, "Id love that... I'd really love it."

**TheEastTerrace** · 14-03-2012 02:47 PM

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Interesting.

Problem is, as we've seen with that "contract", that it is very easy to throw something out there and make out that it's "evidence".

I'm not doubting the RTC blog, they have been on the case for a long time now, but they can be "duped" (there's that word again, thanks Sir David) as well.

To paraphrase Kevin Keegan, though, "Id love that... I'd really love it."

For sure. I await with interest too.

SFA about to release a statement from Campbell Ogilvie according to Evening Times journo

***jonty*** · 14-03-2012 02:49 PM

Originally Posted by moff1875

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For sure. I await with interest too.

SFA about to release a statement from Campbell Ogilvie according to Evening Times journo

They've copied Mikey's open letter.

To whom it may concern
Please see below the result of our internal disciplinery process. Mr Ogilvie (Left) was reprimanded by the SFA Board (right)

The SFA

**TheEastTerrace** · 14-03-2012 03:12 PM

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...=3&newsID=9490

***CropleyWasGod*** · 14-03-2012 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by moff1875

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

http://www.scottishfa.co.uk/scottish...=3&newsID=9490

Much as one would expect, I suppose.

This bit....I was aware of the EBT scheme in operation at Rangers during my time at the club and, indeed, was a member. ..... is the first acknowledgement I have seen of any particular individual's involvement. It also confirms the rumour that it wasn't just about players.