Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Ginger

To use EBTs legally, the company can have no control over the funds in the trust, they cant decide who gets paid, they cant decide when they get paid.....all they do is contribute to the fund, and its the trustees of the fund that divvy it all up and dish it out as and when.

Therefore, in that respect, NOTHING contractual in relation to EBT payments can exist between the club and the employee, as any payment to the employee from the trust must be outwith the clubs control......so how can a contract state an employee willl receive x amount via a trust when the employer has no control over that trust???

No contracts in relation to EBT payments can exist between player and club because of this...if they do, the company clearly controls the fund, and its just a case of the club paying the player via round about route....therefore its taxable

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I believe title stripping is only one of 18 possible sanctions anyway
----------------------------
The fact that the SPL has already tried to do a deal with the club involving the loss of titles kind of shows that this is on their agenda.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Yes; but that went absolutely nowhere
------------------------------------
Only because Rangers kicked it back.

If they have us up on dual contracts, and it can be proven I guarantee they'll strip titles. They've shown the intention is there.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

I believe they are waiting on the HMRC ruling and if favourable; will strengthen their case;
-------------------------------------------------
I think this is the case too. It won't just strenghten/weaken their case, it should make or break it.

Both cases (although centering around a different rule/law) rely on the exact same piece of evidence being produced; the 'side contracts' or whatever you want to call them.

Although given the example of the John Terry case apparently FAs can come to different conclusions as a court of law

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

BDO take over in a few weeks.

I think this is when you can probably say that OldCo are in liquidation.

As far as I am aware though, OldCo basically stay in a form of administration until BDO conclude their business (at least a year away I would guess).

Once the process is concluded, a big 'liquidated' stamp comes down.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

Ginger the thimmy is raging

100