So without the biased `Mike McCurry' like Refs and the stripped titles - that would leave Rangers2012© with a grand total of 25 Legitimate Titles and Celtic with about 65.
We live in a strange world where a company gets fined for paying extra wages and another doesn't for noot paying any !
So, if - and it's a big 'if' - Rangers are found to have cheated then in my opinion they should be stripped of titles. The titles should, in my opinion, be left 'unawarded' for those affected years.
Agree 100% with all of that
There is a distinct problem here.
The SPL tribunal is ONLY looking at whether players were registered correctly.
It is not looking at tax, EBTs or anything else.
So its decision will be whether or not players were correctly registered.
That's it.
So hardly on the same scale as Lance Armstrong etc...
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
"So hardly on the same scale as Lance Armstrong etc..."
Lance Armstrong used drugs to enhance performance.
Rangers2012© used EBTs to enhance performance.
Aye...not the same at all....
see if we are found to have gained an advantage by the misapplication of EBT's will the SPL/ SFA/ Celtic be notifying UEFA to ensure that all co-efficient points gained in the same period are struck off the record? surely celtic, as moral gaurdians of the SPL wouldn't want to seen benefitting financially from Rangers potential misdemeanours?
comment by NNH - GF's lego hair is a thing of beauty. (U10730)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
I don't think they will have their titles stripped to be honest. I certainly don't want them, we were beat fair and square on the park
On the parks where it matters
"we were beat fair and square on the park"
By players that would not have been at Rangers2012© = But for the illegal EBTs.
But they were there and beat you fair and square ON the park
It would be so cringeworthy to try and claim them
By players that would not have been at Rangers2012© = But for the illegal EBTs.
===
how do you fathom that Zico? don't be confusing the application of an EBT for tax purpose and those of fitba contracts afterall Juninho's was perfectly legit
Jeez - please get this into your thick skulls - the SPL are NOT investigating the use of EBTs.
The SPL are not investigating any tax treatment of wages.
The SPL are investigating ONLY whether Rangers players were correctly registered.
That's it.
Whether you like it or not.
And also understand - EBTs are NOT illegal.
So, there are 2 decisions to be revealed:
BTC - if Rangers did not treat tax correctly - if Rangers did not do this correctly, a penalty amount will be payable to HMRC. Then that's it.
SPL - if Rangers did not have players registered correctly - if SPL find Rangers did not, they have 18 possible punishments. That's it.
The BTC is not interested in titles, and the SPL is not interested in tax.
So....Rangers2012© did declare the fact their players were being paid twice from two separate sources?
It comes down to a club bending the registration rules to allow it to make payments to players that it didn't want to pay for fully.
If it didn't want to pay fully for the players, it gained an unfair advantage.
In simple terms, if guilty, RFC played ringers in their games for years.
Ok, these ringers 'won it on the park'.
But they were still ringers. Therefore it wasn't fair. Therefore the trophies are tainted.
If guilty, they should be removed from the record, and the titles for each season should be nulled in the record books.
Tim -just a word on that "didn't want to pay for fully".
Total amount claimed as short by HMRC £47m.
Total amount put into EBTs by Rangers £47m
So the money WAS paid out by Rangers EXACTLY as it would have been if paid directly.....
IE, they mean as much as Armstrong's titles.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
DC1, the issue is, to legally remunerate these players, a whole load of tax needed to be paid.
Perhaps they should go after the players then?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
No the point is, it would appear that the same amount was spent by Rangers whether EBTs were used or not.
Which holes the "couldn't afford them otherwise" argument.
Which then brings the SPL tribunal back to were the players registered correctly or not, which is ALL they are investigating.
To argue that the issue of EBT's is not connected to the issue of side contracts is plain wrong. The reason that RFC issued side letters, contracts--whatever you want to call them--is because they were using EBTs to pay wages. The side letters made it clear to players what they would get in black and white, in a way that the registered contracts could not. In that sense, the side letters issue shows that Murray is in fact a liar, and that, in his attempts to keep Rangers at the top in Scotland, he knew that he was engaging in a tax fiddle.
No-one has ever said that EBTs are illegal, so that is a straw man being set up there if ever I saw one. But they cannot be used for the purposes of salaried payments.
There is so much rubbish spoken and denials offered on this by RFC fans, it is laughable. Murray knew, and has known for several years that HMRC had a problem with the way that EBTs were being used at Ibrox, but continued to use them right up to last year. I have no doubt that the way that RFC has conducted itself throughout this whole sorry period is one of the reasons why the CVA was rejected by the HMRC.
Basically, Murray destroyed RFC, and he did it in a quite blatant way. His ego was such that he wanted RFC to be the biggest club in Scotland and a force to be reckoned with in Europe. To do this, he engaged in absolutely reckless spending, coupled with tax avoidance on a breathtaking scale. Maybe someday, fans of the former club will be willing to see what really is in front of their eye on this issue
"Tim -just a word on that "didn't want to pay for fully".
Total amount claimed as short by HMRC £47m.
Total amount put into EBTs by Rangers £47m
So the money WAS paid out by Rangers EXACTLY as it would have been if paid directly....."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So the EBT monies had the PAYE and TAX taken off them?
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
No the point is, it would appear that the same amount was spent by Rangers whether EBTs were used or not.
Are you for real?
Yes, they did spend the same money, but more of it went to the players, because of the tax avoidance.
Surely even those who didn't get past Janet and John level 1 at school can see that if more of that money was going to the taxman, less would have gone to the players, making it more difficult to sign them in the first place.
Think about it
Sign in if you want to comment
When.....
Page 2 of 3
posted on 29/10/12
So without the biased `Mike McCurry' like Refs and the stripped titles - that would leave Rangers2012© with a grand total of 25 Legitimate Titles and Celtic with about 65.
posted on 29/10/12
We live in a strange world where a company gets fined for paying extra wages and another doesn't for noot paying any !
posted on 29/10/12
So, if - and it's a big 'if' - Rangers are found to have cheated then in my opinion they should be stripped of titles. The titles should, in my opinion, be left 'unawarded' for those affected years.
Agree 100% with all of that
posted on 29/10/12
There is a distinct problem here.
The SPL tribunal is ONLY looking at whether players were registered correctly.
It is not looking at tax, EBTs or anything else.
So its decision will be whether or not players were correctly registered.
That's it.
So hardly on the same scale as Lance Armstrong etc...
posted on 29/10/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/10/12
"So hardly on the same scale as Lance Armstrong etc..."
Lance Armstrong used drugs to enhance performance.
Rangers2012© used EBTs to enhance performance.
Aye...not the same at all....
posted on 29/10/12
see if we are found to have gained an advantage by the misapplication of EBT's will the SPL/ SFA/ Celtic be notifying UEFA to ensure that all co-efficient points gained in the same period are struck off the record? surely celtic, as moral gaurdians of the SPL wouldn't want to seen benefitting financially from Rangers potential misdemeanours?
posted on 29/10/12
comment by NNH - GF's lego hair is a thing of beauty. (U10730)
posted 2 hours, 16 minutes ago
I don't think they will have their titles stripped to be honest. I certainly don't want them, we were beat fair and square on the park
On the parks where it matters
posted on 29/10/12
"we were beat fair and square on the park"
By players that would not have been at Rangers2012© = But for the illegal EBTs.
posted on 29/10/12
But they were there and beat you fair and square ON the park
It would be so cringeworthy to try and claim them
posted on 29/10/12
By players that would not have been at Rangers2012© = But for the illegal EBTs.
===
how do you fathom that Zico? don't be confusing the application of an EBT for tax purpose and those of fitba contracts afterall Juninho's was perfectly legit
posted on 29/10/12
Jeez - please get this into your thick skulls - the SPL are NOT investigating the use of EBTs.
The SPL are not investigating any tax treatment of wages.
The SPL are investigating ONLY whether Rangers players were correctly registered.
That's it.
Whether you like it or not.
And also understand - EBTs are NOT illegal.
So, there are 2 decisions to be revealed:
BTC - if Rangers did not treat tax correctly - if Rangers did not do this correctly, a penalty amount will be payable to HMRC. Then that's it.
SPL - if Rangers did not have players registered correctly - if SPL find Rangers did not, they have 18 possible punishments. That's it.
The BTC is not interested in titles, and the SPL is not interested in tax.
posted on 29/10/12
So....Rangers2012© did declare the fact their players were being paid twice from two separate sources?
posted on 29/10/12
It comes down to a club bending the registration rules to allow it to make payments to players that it didn't want to pay for fully.
If it didn't want to pay fully for the players, it gained an unfair advantage.
In simple terms, if guilty, RFC played ringers in their games for years.
Ok, these ringers 'won it on the park'.
But they were still ringers. Therefore it wasn't fair. Therefore the trophies are tainted.
If guilty, they should be removed from the record, and the titles for each season should be nulled in the record books.
posted on 29/10/12
54 on the park
posted on 29/10/12
Tim -just a word on that "didn't want to pay for fully".
Total amount claimed as short by HMRC £47m.
Total amount put into EBTs by Rangers £47m
So the money WAS paid out by Rangers EXACTLY as it would have been if paid directly.....
posted on 29/10/12
IE, they mean as much as Armstrong's titles.
posted on 29/10/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/10/12
DC1, the issue is, to legally remunerate these players, a whole load of tax needed to be paid.
Perhaps they should go after the players then?
posted on 29/10/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/10/12
No the point is, it would appear that the same amount was spent by Rangers whether EBTs were used or not.
Which holes the "couldn't afford them otherwise" argument.
Which then brings the SPL tribunal back to were the players registered correctly or not, which is ALL they are investigating.
posted on 29/10/12
To argue that the issue of EBT's is not connected to the issue of side contracts is plain wrong. The reason that RFC issued side letters, contracts--whatever you want to call them--is because they were using EBTs to pay wages. The side letters made it clear to players what they would get in black and white, in a way that the registered contracts could not. In that sense, the side letters issue shows that Murray is in fact a liar, and that, in his attempts to keep Rangers at the top in Scotland, he knew that he was engaging in a tax fiddle.
No-one has ever said that EBTs are illegal, so that is a straw man being set up there if ever I saw one. But they cannot be used for the purposes of salaried payments.
There is so much rubbish spoken and denials offered on this by RFC fans, it is laughable. Murray knew, and has known for several years that HMRC had a problem with the way that EBTs were being used at Ibrox, but continued to use them right up to last year. I have no doubt that the way that RFC has conducted itself throughout this whole sorry period is one of the reasons why the CVA was rejected by the HMRC.
Basically, Murray destroyed RFC, and he did it in a quite blatant way. His ego was such that he wanted RFC to be the biggest club in Scotland and a force to be reckoned with in Europe. To do this, he engaged in absolutely reckless spending, coupled with tax avoidance on a breathtaking scale. Maybe someday, fans of the former club will be willing to see what really is in front of their eye on this issue
posted on 29/10/12
"Tim -just a word on that "didn't want to pay for fully".
Total amount claimed as short by HMRC £47m.
Total amount put into EBTs by Rangers £47m
So the money WAS paid out by Rangers EXACTLY as it would have been if paid directly....."
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
So the EBT monies had the PAYE and TAX taken off them?
posted on 29/10/12
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 29/10/12
No the point is, it would appear that the same amount was spent by Rangers whether EBTs were used or not.
Are you for real?
Yes, they did spend the same money, but more of it went to the players, because of the tax avoidance.
Surely even those who didn't get past Janet and John level 1 at school can see that if more of that money was going to the taxman, less would have gone to the players, making it more difficult to sign them in the first place.
Think about it
Page 2 of 3