doesnt the Limitation Act apply here as well?

limitation time period for contract is 6yrs?

The SPL would only be able to consider from 2006 onwards? in which period we won 3 titles!

or would the SFA just ignore laws & Acts for these purposes?

We have established that Juninho was paid through an undisclosed EBT, so this as clear a case against this rule as you can find.

However they have chosen to ignore this case but go after Rangers.
-----------
Not as far as i understand it.

The EBT was noted and indeed tax paid on it by the club as the club was nervous on the process. This was highlighted to HMRC.

if the contract that Juninho had was very clear on payments made - and neither you or I can say it was / wasnt - and their methodology then there is in essence no case to answer. In fact the only summation to this is the statement made yesterday to say that everything was in fact above board and correct.

This either means that Celtic have indeed concluded matters properly or the entire process is corrupt, its all a conspiracy against rangers and that celtic have used come underhanded collusion to again run Scottish football - this time by infiltrating several organisations and HMRC.

if you believe the latter then I am not going to continue this discussion...

As stated "ad-nausium", EBT's are not illegal. There is and still is no issue using them if recorded properly and disclosed to the relevant tax bodies.

It is presumed from the evidence presented by BBC Scotland to the public that Rangers did not disclose this information and indeed rather than one EBT that required clarification there have been dozens - makingf the problem - if it is a problem - many times worse.

Again IF Rangers have no case to answer, like Celtic, then the panel will clear all the concerns - correct?

"Not as far as i understand it.

The EBT was noted and indeed tax paid on it by the club as the club was nervous on the process. This was highlighted to HMRC."

Celtic confirmed that the EBT was not disclosed to the SFA/SPL and also stated that they paid the tax on it 4 years after the fact.

Again, this is not an issue on tax though, its an issue on registration.

"if the contract that Juninho had was very clear on payments made - and neither you or I can say it was / wasnt - and their methodology then there is in essence no case to answer. In fact the only summation to this is the statement made yesterday to say that everything was in fact above board and correct."

Not if you look at it logically. Celtic admit that no tax was paid on the EBT, so it cannot have formed part of the contract as EBTs cannot be contractual payments. Tax is paid on all contractual payments.

"This either means that Celtic have indeed concluded matters properly or the entire process is corrupt, its all a conspiracy against rangers and that celtic have used come underhanded collusion to again run Scottish football - this time by infiltrating several organisations and HMRC."

I dont think its either. I believe the SPL think they have to look to take action on Rangers due to the public pressure and things such as the BBC documentary. In doing so they want to punish rangers for the tax issue, but their rules dont allow this. Instead they want to use the contract rules, but fit them to suit the case therefore letting Celtic off with the same issue.

"As stated "ad-nausium", EBT's are not illegal. There is and still is no issue using them if recorded properly and disclosed to the relevant tax bodies."

I know this, I have always said this.

"It is presumed from the evidence presented by BBC Scotland to the public that Rangers did not disclose this information and indeed rather than one EBT that required clarification there have been dozens - makingf the problem - if it is a problem - many times worse."

The problem I have with this, is that you seem to assume that Rangers offence was so severe it needs to be acted upon. I would argue that all rule breaches need to be acted on. Including Celtics. This is what the SPL appear not to be doing, they look to be selectively choosing.

"Again IF Rangers have no case to answer, like Celtic, then the panel will clear all the concerns - correct?"

This is the biggest bug-bear.

Rangers case is being put to a tribunal lead by that judge (cant mind his name now). Celtic's case has been blocked from going to this same tribunal.

Who is to say that the tribunal would not find against Celtic? Not that the tribunal has a very good track record anyway.

The SPL has decided not to put Celtic's case to the tribunal, they have provided no information on who investigated Celtic. Was it the same lot that Investigated Rangers? If it was a different firm, then why were they not used to begin with?

There is no transparency.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

If Celtic had paid a player through an EBT, which are solely designed for loans, then subsequently paid the tax on it, to fend off HMRC, how can it have been registered as wages with the SPL?

If it was for wages, no EBT was required.

If it is for an EBT loan, no notification to SPL was required.

But we are being told that Celtic used an EBT AND it was for wages.

Not possible.

But we are being told that Celtic used an EBT AND it was for wages.
-----------------------------
It was a severance package, that's not the same as a weekly salary. I would imagine a severance agreement would be included in your contract so it would always be something the SFA/SPL were aware of. Whether they declared the method of payment or exact amount at the time isn't really relevant.

It pains me to defend Celtic but it'd be petty to do otherwise. I don't see how they have much of a case to answer here.

db

http://i141.photobucket.com/albums/r68/dotec/ClutchingStraws.jpg

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

so why did they investigate rangers?
---------
So you cant tell the difference between a 1 off severance payment to 1 player and years of discretionary payments to 10's of players and staff?

Course not - its all a conshpirashy.....

Celtic informed HMRC of the details of their EBT transaction with Juninho and were told this was regarded as income, not a loan, and that they would need to pay tax. Celtic then paid tax due on top of the £750k which went to Juninho. It was a pointless and expensive exercise for Celtic, but they dealt with it honestly and openly.

-------------------------------------

Problem with this story is that Celtic have confirmed the tax was not paid till years later. Basically until rangers started getting investigated.

dos

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Problem with this story is that Celtic have confirmed the tax was not paid till years later. Basically until rangers started getting investigated.
----------------------------------
It may be shady and I'm sure Celtic knew they were avoiding tax but in this case it doesn't really break SFA rules.

Rangers are being investigate for several "top up" payments, this is totally different to a severance deal that will have been in his contract.

This was probably a case of tax avoidance as with Rangers but Celtic have repaid the amount due.

Spl now saying that harper McLeod only did some minor paperwork on the rangers case

Just last week they were saying harper McLeod were dealing with it all to see if gers had a case to answer. .

Something fishy going on here.

They also refuse to name who done the investigating in the celtuc case. Just saying 'office bearers'.

Makes you wonder why harper McLeod investigated rangers without conflict of interest but werent appointed to investigate celtics for some reason

Where's me tinfoil hat

It has been said on here from Celtic fans that the EBT was a legacy from his time at Boro and also that it was a severance
-------------------------------------------
Both statements are true. Boro opened the trust. He asked for his severance pay to be put into the same fund.

Celtic will have known full well that this was a tax dodge of that I have no doubt and their pretending not to fully understand the situation is nonsense.

Still doesn't make them guilty of any SFA rule breaches.

They were guilty of avoiding tax hence why the amount was repaid to HMRC.

Seems like a pretty simple case to me.

Rangers are being investigate for several "top up" payments, this is totally different to a severance deal that will have been in his contract.

----------------------

An EBT could not be listed in the contract as part of a severance package as this would have made it taxable.

For them not to pay tax, it was required to be left off the contract.

An EBT could not be listed in the contract as part of a severance package as this would have made it taxable.

For them not to pay tax, it was required to be left off the contract.
----------
Spot on




...Unless a second contract existed that detailed these discretionary payments...

You know...the crux of the investigation...

You know, I'm fed up of all this bullsht

At the end of the day, who really cares if Rangers players had a side contract topping up their salaries?
To equate this to title-stripping is utilising more of a loophole of an excuse than the f[_]cking EBT's themselves...

Noone has produced the slightest bit of evidence to prove that Rangers DID have side-contracts, but Celtic DID obviously have one with Juninho, otherwise where was a severance payment he was apparently entitled to documented? The back of a smoke-packet?!

This is all one big pile of nonsense and it's time we got back to playing football f fs

BBC now saying Ian Blair, the SPL secretary investigated the Celtic EBT and reported to the SPL board.

And the SPL board are: Ralph Topping (SPL Chairman), Neil Doncaster (SPL Chief Executive), Eric Riley (Celtic FC), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United FC), Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen FC) and Michael Johnston (Kilmarnock FC)........

but Celtic DID obviously have one with Juninho, otherwise where was a severance payment he was apparently entitled to documented?
-------------
Umm, probably in his contract, it's standard. All players are entitled to severance pay to end their contract early. The in manner in which it's paid isn't relevant.