It's not a tax issue Duke it's a secondary payments issue. Celtic did the same, yet there is a cover up or no need for them to have a hearing.

Stinks to high heaven tbh.

Not really the same thing. Celtic used an EBT to make a severance payment.

That's not really the same thing. Whether they paid tax correctly or not is irrelevant and not the concern of the SPL.

I can't see what a severance pay deal has to do with dual contracts. Every contractor gets severance pay, it's pretty unreasonable to start picking on someone for that. I would also imagine a severance agreement would be in his initial contract so it would have been declared somewhere down the line. Whether they chose to inform the SFA of the method of payment is pretty irrelevant.

Celtic may not have declared the EBT scheme in their accounts but that has nothing to do with registration of players.

I'm a Rangers fan btw, I don't think there's any need to start the one up arguments here. Our club has clearly run a massive tax avoidance scheme for years. The chances are we'll get away with it as many companies have with HMRC.

In the case of Rangers the HMRC outcome will be directly related to the dual contracts issue, as both cases are relying on the same evidence being produced. Whether players had written agreements showing that the EBT loans were top ups to their salaries. For HMRC this = tax avoidance, for the SFA this = undeclared earnings and a void registration.

DB where did you get your info re severence payment? I ask as it's probably info made up by Celtic fans and stuck online.

Why would they use an EBT for severance pay when it means he's leaving as it's a tax free loan? It doesn't make sense at all.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-avoid-ebt-probe-because-1323456
--------------------------
There you go.

As I said it was clearly a scheme to avoid tax as ours was. Nobody can really deny that. Although it will be difficult for any court to prove it.

The crux of it is whether the rules were broken on declaring football related payments. In the case of Juninho it was a severance payment after he finished playing for Celtic, therefore not a contractual football related payment, therefore not against the rules.

The fact that it was an EBT is of no concern to the SPL, it is to HMRC, but they have since been paid the tax due.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Nae bother ginger

I'm sick of the constant on upmanship pash on here.

Not that I particularly like sticking up for Celtic but I canny be ersed with folk acting like children either.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

it's not a tax issue Duke it's a secondary payments issue. Celtic did the same, yet there is a cover up or no need for them to have a hearing.

Stinks to high heaven tbh.





http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/celtic-avoid-ebt-probe-because-1323456


Castlle where did ye go or is this more timmy lies.

I think the penny may have dropped for me on this one.

The Brasil chap had time left on his contract.
Both parties wanted him out.

So the 750k was the negotiated pay off.

The crux being this was from his existing contract.

Hence why HMRC found Celtic guilty and tax had to be paid, and therefore as part of a declared contract why the SPL found them innocent.

I think

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

An SPL source said: “It’s a simple process of matching it up to our rule book.

“In the case of Celtic’s EBT for Juninho he wasn’t paid while he was kicking a ball for Celtic. He received payment after he’d finished playing for the club.”

-----

Part of everyones confusion is the complete lack of understanding by the media and even the football authorities.

Read the quote I give above........

Now seriously are we meat to take that in and believe it.

If true then a player can have his declared contract running all well and good but in the background have a silent clause undeclared promising him a further undeclared payment when he leaves the club.

That cant possibly be correct and frankly is pretty much the whole issue. Additional payments if made during or after the player leaves amounts the frign same thing Mr SPL spokesperson with no name

Not really a severance deal is common for many contractors and the details will no doubt have been in his contract to some degree. It may not have been to the penny but it will have been in the contract that he is entitled to a severance package.

If you are going to pick on this then we would have to review every player that's ever received a severance package and void their registrations as well.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

db Ging

But what that no name SPL chap says is garbage

Ill pay you 10 quid a week for 3 years and we will tell the SPL that but then see when your gone mate Ill give you a cheeky wee million.

That is what he is saying and that would be ok.
BSHT Spl no name chap is talking pash

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

it aint half ginge

Comment deleted by Site Moderator