Generic Sevco / Rangers meltdown thread

[grunt]

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

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.

And of course, the little matter of £24m of unpaid tax on the EBT payments.

[Kaiser1962]

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

As they have throughout this whole process.

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.

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.

[StevieC]

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

Anyone fancy dissecting Alastair Johnston's statement made via RST?

I'll pick out this little paragraph ..

"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" ..

[Onion]

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

The key word there is "considering". Once he has considered this for at least two minutes he will realise that Rangers (not The Rangers) were members of the SPL and ignored the rules of the SFA, Uefa and FIFA as well as probably breaking the law to boot. I think if they lose the honours won they are getting off bloody lightly.

So the downside of outright cheating is loss of the swag they acquired ? If they applied this logic to burglars there would be anarchy.

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 The Huns have signed their own warrant

[Hibrandenburg]

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.

[Since90+2]

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

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

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.

[Kaiser1962]

"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."

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

I'll pick out this little paragraph ..

"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" ..

[Eyrie]

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.

[Moulin Yarns]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19569680

[Seveno]

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-19569680

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.

It's going to be fun.

[grunt]

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.

[Northernhibee]

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".

[PatHead]

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

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.............

[cam75]

I hear there could be stripping of knight hoods and poss jail time!!

[sahib]

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

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.

They must have thought it legal at some point or else why use it? Brown paper bags would have been safer.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

They must have thought it legal at some point or else why use it? Brown paper bags would have been safer.

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.

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.

[Kaiser1962]

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

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.

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.

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.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

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.

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

It would be straightforward, though, if the loanees repaid the money.......

[Kaiser1962]

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

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.

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

It would be straightforward, though, if the loanees repaid the money.......

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?

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.

[Jack Hackett]

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

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.

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

[CropleyWasGod]

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

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?

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.

It would do if they were employees. That's part of the issue, though. Were they employed by the trust?

And, your professional opinion, as expressed in your final paragraph, is right on the freaking button.....

[s.a.m]

What do you think has caused the delays in the tax case verdict?

[CropleyWasGod]

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

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.

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.

[s.a.m]

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

1. every instance of "EBTising" would have to be reviewed by the Tribunal. That takes time.

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.

[matty_f]

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.

[CropleyWasGod]

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

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.

I don't think that the EBTs have been scrutinised by anybody "official", other than HMRC.

[Caversham Green]

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

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.

He goes on to say

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.

[greenginger]

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.

[DH1875]

I gave up on this thread ages ago but noticed today that they've said the tax case will be done by next month. My question is, does it really matter now? If they are found guilty and owe the tax man 50 million are the newco liable for it. As far as I knew they aren't and they have already gotten away with it.

[bighairyfaeleith]

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

I gave up on this thread ages ago but noticed today that they've said the tax case will be done by next month. My question is, does it really matter now? If they are found guilty and owe the tax man 50 million are the newco liable for it. As far as I knew they aren't and they have already gotten away with it.

matters for a couple of reasons I think, one it will set a precedent to go after other clubs with and they may also decide to pursue the directors of the company at the time i.e. SDM.