* accountants....dumb sausage fingers.

naw,just dumb

"employes"


Davie ... scrap the accountancy CA ... it might not be too late to enroll in an English language course.

You're obviously one of those people who is out of bounds with stupidity.

Well done Celtic last night and I might as well admit to getting my prediction wrong. I said Celtic would get humped 6-0..............mind you I got the "nothing" bit right so I was only half wrong eh .

IE - I wasnt even going into the tax dodged. All I really said was that losses over Murrays reign would've been £50m higher had EBTs not been used.

If Rangers paid gross wages of £50m through PAYE then the tax would be around £25m, but paying a Net amount of £50m actually cost around £100m so its about £50m saved in tax had the net paid been the same.


Brooklyn - If Rangers receive £50m for a player then they have £50m profit, ok? If they pay £50m in wages there is no profit, ok? If they dont pay wages but instead pay £50m into an EBT then the profit is still £50m, get it?. It doesnt matter how, when or if this money gets paid back, it NEVER effects the P&L.

Hiya hillbilly..how are you doing?

Aye im fine bubble, and you?

Ah no too bad mate...hows the diet going, any joy?

Nah, ah gained another 2 stone last week mate. Those Division 3 away grounds dont cater for the larger man.

Dave - surely it's 25m saved then. Tax is roughly around 45-50% over last decade for high earners?

Have you tried slimming world billy, worth a shot mate.

Davie....the thing is, Rangers DID pay EVERY player a salary AND bonuses for the period in question.

Murray is trying to claim that the EBT payments were individual (they weren't paid to everyone, so there may be some sense in there), optional (there has been no evidence produced whatsoever to prove these "side-contracts" that everyone is harping on about) and non-contractual.

For an accountant, you're really not very good at accounting....
If they pay £50m into an EBT, then there is no corporation tax to pay on that £50m is there, for a start?
Therefore if the money was NOT paid into an EBT, then it DOES affect the P&L....
Both, in that instead of having £50m tucked away in trust funds. You;re treating the £50m as if it was not spent on trust contributions, it was being spent on salaries. The players were ALREADY getting salaries, so this is not the case, and an EBT is non-contractual...

I really can't believe you're an accountant man...

That's maybe the next step bubble. I'll borrow the birds Mobility scooter and go find out more about it.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Aye do that billy. Anyhow, im off to see the shrink mate, he thinks i might have a 'split personality' problem...nuts eh!

Ok bubble, let me know what he says..

Will do..

BB

Give him a break... he's only 'studying' it.

one flew over the cuckoos nest

IE - 50% of £100m is £50m; the amount paid.

Brooklyn - you're just plain wrong. What difference does it make if they already had salaries? Rangers paid £50m to EBTs. Of course I'm treating this £50m as wages paid to players, because it was.

Why you banging on about side contracts and Murray? If the same value of EBTs was instead paid wages then profit would be £50m less. Only an idiot would argue that these payments were nothing to do with players wages. You're also a bit all over the place and clearly dont know what you're talking about. You dont pay corporation tax on things paid out, they reduce your profit so you pay less tax. Payments into EBTs do not reduce profit, can you not get this fact through your thick skull?

Dave - but it's 50m that was paid , so tax would have been around 50% , so 25m wasn't paid?

Aye net, if you wanted to pay a footballer £50m a season net then his wages would actually be around £100m.

Where is the count from Seasame Street when you need him!

You have lost me dave. I thought that of you paid 50 million, then the tax on that would be another 50% of what you paid them?