no its not an advantage

EBTs are legal everyone can use them

If they were not used properly then this is an HMRC issue ad nothing to do with sporting bodies

If it was a second undeclared contract then this would be against the SFA rules exactly as it would be if you had a second PAYE contract. However that as in the EBT case would simply be an admin issue subject to perhaps a reprimand for future disclosure.

Is it fair that Celtic receive more money from Sky than any other club in the SPL even though they are equal partners in the SPL? Is this not an unfair advantage?

Yes but as rangers made them contractually to the players then that deems them illegal! Does it not

Here we go again.

comment by Wanyamas Big Toe (U9404)
posted 19 seconds ago
Yes but as rangers made them contractually to the players then that deems them illegal! Does it not
==

NO

If HMRC win the appeal the outcome will be as it was before ie outstanding tax is due

Nothing illegal

Pioneer I think you'll find the reason for that is that every second game sky shows features Celtic. So where's the equality in that?

Sportscene or the 100 metres final?

Duke an ebt cannot be part of a contract. It's a loan, why do you think the players got issued with side letters to cover them when the proverbial hit the fan?

"i am sure an independent panel will see it that way as well"
-------------------------------------------------------

We'll see what the panel and tribunal actually say. Just because something gives you an advantage doesn't mean it's an unfair advantage.

Since when was television coverage a punishment?

Poor Celtic on tv all the time...lets make them feel better by giving them an unfair financial advantage

yes which is what is being judged at the moment

It has however already been concluded last year the result is at the appeal stage.

"It has however already been concluded last year"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The big tax case? Only if you count the taxman chucking out an assessment as concluding.

yes BH though perhaps concluding was a bit strong

My point is only that HMRC found in their opinion we used them improperly NOTHING ILLEGAL
Though we are still debating it.

Tv coverage isn't a punishment, but if Celtic are on every 2nd game then they deserve more obviously. And for the amount of coverage of them compared to the actual amounts for it is a pittance. So going by your reckoning newco gers are already getting an unfair advantage in the 3rd division?

Celtic have 1/12th membership of the SPL, the tv deal is negotiated by Neil Doncaster and Peter Lawwell on behalf of every member club

Is it fair that one club should have not only their chief executive negotiate a price but get a bigger cut for his own club?

All clubs have an equal share, except Celtic who have a more equal share than everyone else

Is the tv money not paid on a per game basis? Ie the more games your team is involved in the more money? If not show me the source of your info

no its not

show me a source saying it is.

Pioneer, has nobody told you yet, Big Peter is running the show now. Get used to it, he is behind every big decision in scottish football so deal with it son.

Doesn't seem unfair to me! Have a look at the following link. Instead of jumping to conclusions to back up your non argument
http://www.scotprem.com/content/default.asp?page=s2&newsid=7618&back=home

A lot of people are confusing EBT's with dual contracts. Remember not every EBT had a dual contract. The issue at hand is really about side contracts, which about half of the player on EBT's had.

timmy that was just an admin error tho,no biggie,Pity that celtic are getting their lawyers on the case to strip the poor rangers of titles as they have done absolutely nothing wrong except for a minor administrative error...

sarky however correct Tim

and it was a serious admin error but nobody died FFS.

LETS NOT BLOW IT OUT OF PROPORTION.

Rangers died.

Blacksod

Morbid interest in the dead about here then?

Weird

To the OP and all others getting completely carried away with this.

Prove that Rangers could not have afforded to pay the players without the use of EBTs.

Go on prove it.

Because unless someone can actually prove that Rangers had an advantage they could not possibly otherwise have had (to use your example 60 players Rangers could not have afforded), then the entire "advantage" argument is knackered.