Davie we saved about the same as 2 x Flo
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.
prove that you could've.Murray was getting upto his eyeballs in debt with the banks,i think it is highly possible that if he hadn't went down the ebt route he would'nt have been able to give the myth £38m to spend on a new squad.
comment by daviecooper1 (U4712)
posted 38 minutes ago
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.
---oo---
How much more proof do you need than liquidation?
Pffft.
that was just because of an admin error nightmail....
Prove that Rangers could not have afforded to pay the players without the use of EBTs.
++++
Liquidation, liquidation, nah, nah nana, nah< musicalnote>
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Lloyds would never have sanctioned what your proposing curly! Your overdraft at those times was already through the roof. Hence why one of their executives was put on your board, but by then it was too late to do anything and we all know the end result
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
the cants widny gie me a loan
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Enough with the re-writing of history already.
Rangers went into admin due to non payment of taxes. That's it. Nothing to do with any debts run up years ago.
The total bank debt was being reduced at around £1m per year and was around £17m when Whyte came in. 9 months later we are in the mire for £55m.
Nothing to do with EBTs etc.
So I ask again - prove that Rangers could not have afforded these players without use of EBTs.
Because without that proof, there is no case. You cannot say that Rangers are guilty because they cannot prove they COULD afford the players otherwise.
Little thing called innocent until proven guilty.
You may be familiar with it.....
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
DC1,
Utter tosh.
If you could afford to pay the effing tax, why didn't you?
You can't defend your position by saying 'aye, well, we could've paid the tax if we wanted'.
That's even more reprehensible than the current situation, and if you go in with that defence, you should be hammered even further for flouting convention.
Or maybe you still, even after all this time, just don't get it.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Vodafone recently got let off a huge tax bill. It doesn't mean they couldn't afford to pay it.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
The mechanism you used in this case was 'unsound' curly.
It is ok to 'avoid' tax, but the EBT scheme was illegal. According to HMRC anyway. Hence the wait on the tribunal.
But in a sporting sense, why were RFC the only club to employ this scheme? It was dodgy as fekk, and yo have a case to answer.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Curly,
The mechanism by which you avoided tax via an ebt was unsound. This is why you have been told to pay whatever it is that HMRC told you to pay.
You have been taking it through the courts. You are now awaiting the judgement. HMRC believe you owe them millions in tax and fines.
You misused the ebt scheme according to HMRC. This misuse gave you a direct sporting advantage, because you could afford to pay higher wages.
You say how do we know you couldn't have paid the tax anyway?
Bottom line, you didn't.
Sign in if you want to comment
Do EBTS equate to an unfair advantage!
Page 2 of 5
posted on 5/8/12
Davie we saved about the same as 2 x Flo
posted on 5/8/12
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.
prove that you could've.Murray was getting upto his eyeballs in debt with the banks,i think it is highly possible that if he hadn't went down the ebt route he would'nt have been able to give the myth £38m to spend on a new squad.
posted on 5/8/12
comment by daviecooper1 (U4712)
posted 38 minutes ago
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.
---oo---
How much more proof do you need than liquidation?
Pffft.
posted on 5/8/12
that was just because of an admin error nightmail....
posted on 6/8/12
Prove that Rangers could not have afforded to pay the players without the use of EBTs.
++++
Liquidation, liquidation, nah, nah nana, nah< musicalnote>
posted on 6/8/12
nana ffs
posted on 6/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/8/12
Lloyds would never have sanctioned what your proposing curly! Your overdraft at those times was already through the roof. Hence why one of their executives was put on your board, but by then it was too late to do anything and we all know the end result
posted on 6/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/8/12
the cants widny gie me a loan
posted on 6/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/8/12
in 18 mins a will
posted on 6/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/8/12
Enough with the re-writing of history already.
Rangers went into admin due to non payment of taxes. That's it. Nothing to do with any debts run up years ago.
The total bank debt was being reduced at around £1m per year and was around £17m when Whyte came in. 9 months later we are in the mire for £55m.
Nothing to do with EBTs etc.
So I ask again - prove that Rangers could not have afforded these players without use of EBTs.
Because without that proof, there is no case. You cannot say that Rangers are guilty because they cannot prove they COULD afford the players otherwise.
Little thing called innocent until proven guilty.
You may be familiar with it.....
posted on 6/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/8/12
DC1,
Utter tosh.
If you could afford to pay the effing tax, why didn't you?
You can't defend your position by saying 'aye, well, we could've paid the tax if we wanted'.
That's even more reprehensible than the current situation, and if you go in with that defence, you should be hammered even further for flouting convention.
Or maybe you still, even after all this time, just don't get it.
posted on 6/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/8/12
Don't know, why?
posted on 6/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/8/12
Vodafone recently got let off a huge tax bill. It doesn't mean they couldn't afford to pay it.
posted on 6/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/8/12
The mechanism you used in this case was 'unsound' curly.
It is ok to 'avoid' tax, but the EBT scheme was illegal. According to HMRC anyway. Hence the wait on the tribunal.
But in a sporting sense, why were RFC the only club to employ this scheme? It was dodgy as fekk, and yo have a case to answer.
posted on 6/8/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 6/8/12
Curly,
The mechanism by which you avoided tax via an ebt was unsound. This is why you have been told to pay whatever it is that HMRC told you to pay.
You have been taking it through the courts. You are now awaiting the judgement. HMRC believe you owe them millions in tax and fines.
You misused the ebt scheme according to HMRC. This misuse gave you a direct sporting advantage, because you could afford to pay higher wages.
You say how do we know you couldn't have paid the tax anyway?
Bottom line, you didn't.
Page 2 of 5