I am not saying that this is the answer - just pointing out that the total claimed by HMRC exclusing penalties & interest, is pretty much identical to the total put into EBTs as recorded on Rangers' accounts over the years.

And Hampden - you may be right they are linked, but so far as what is being investigated by the SPL, ie the tribunal's frame of reference, it is ONLY the registration of players. Not EBTs. Not Tax.

I do agree that Murray mismanaged Rangers - no doubt. I also say that Whyte came in & creamed off what was left & legged it. So they are jointly (if not equally) liable for the demise of Rangers.

Hampden - you miss the point. It has been claimed that Rangers benefited financially by using EBTs. This seems to not be the case.

So then the claim is Rangers would not otherwise have been able to afford the players.

Why? Can you prove this? Can anyone? Clearly not.

There is absolutely no way to prove that if Rangers had not used EBTs, they could not have afforded the players concerned.

Which brings it all back to the only thing that the SPL can work on.

The registration of the players.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

The issue of Celtic's EBT with Juninho is a bit of a red herring. One player getting it when he was leaving is a bit different to the 38 RFC did it with.

It also seems that Brian Quinn warned Celtic against repeating the Juninho EBT and insisted they pay tax to the HMRC for this.

Pity RFC didn't have anyone like Quinn on board back when all this was happening

The issue of Celtic's EBT with Juninho is a bit of a red herring. One player getting it when he was leaving is a bit different to the 38 RFC did it with.
===

your right Hampden, celtic are the ONLY scottish club to have been found to misuse EBT's

No, DC, the point is that RFC used EBT's to pay RFC players wages that would have been out of their reach had they been paying tax. That is a self-evident truth, which doesnt need any further analysis. The reason they used EBTs is because they could not have paid those players those salaries otherwise.

Under Murray, RFC had tens of millions of pounds of debt. In fact, at one stage, it was reputed to be somewhere between 50-60 million. If he had been paying tax, that debt would have been, even for the very indulgent RBS, unsustainable.

So, in fact, misusing the EBTs did benefit them financially, in the sense that it kept their debt levels lower than they would have been.

And of course, the reason that the side letters existed is because Murray was using the EBTs dishonestly

There is no way to prove that Rangers could not have paid players directly. Remembering of course that the players benefit from an EBT.

You can SAY that Rangers could not have afforded to pay the players directly, the same nett amount, but there is no proof to this.

The reason EBTs were used was as it was more attractive part of the overall package to players because of the tax treatment. Like a benefit in kind, if you like.

And if any "side letters" (still no one has published any of these) exist, then if they say - "You have access to an EBT, and here's the details" then what is the problem?

TRFC - "celtic are the ONLY scottish club to have been found to misuse EBT's" lies.

Celtic have NEVER been found to misuse EBTs. In fact they were CLEARED of any misuse. Here's my source for saying that - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2202374/Celtic-did-break-rules-EBT.html -

Where's yours? Mmmmm?? You know you can't show one 'cause there ain't one.

tully

your link said they did not breach SPL rules...which is fair enough....HMRC on the other hand...well a number of years after the Juninho EBT, 2008 i believe, Brian Kelly approached HMRC to settle the tax liability

The reason EBTs were used was as it was more attractive part of the overall package to players because of the tax treatment. Like a benefit in kind, if you like.

---------------------------------------------------------------
delusional

It won't matter that much soon, anyway.

There seems not a cat's chance in hell of the HMRC doing a somersault and determining that, RFC were, after all operating this scheme in accordance with the regulations. Anyone wanting to bet on the outcome of this appeal would get astronomically long odds on Murray's version of events being accepted.

And if, as has been argued by the BBC, the side letters detail payments not included on the contracts, then they'll be bang to rights on that one too.

Not long to wait now.

Murray will get a nice wee room in the Bar-L, with some succulent Rat for dinner. NOMNOM

Zico, - yep, and Whyte as a neighbour!

If old Rangers are stripped of titles and cup wins the relevent authorities will have to award them to the runner ups in each case.
To not do so leaves huge holes in the history of football competition within Scotland. If the record books are ammended to show no winner then it punishes the whole of Scottish fitba by deeming whole seasons null and void. Making any part played by every team that competed in the league and cup competitions irrelevent.
Any punishment that may be handed out should punish only those found to have broken the rules not Scottish football in total.

TRFC "well a number of years after the Juninho EBT, 2008 i believe, Brian Kelly approached HMRC to settle the tax liability " that's keech and you know it.

"I believe" - gie's peace, you'd believe yer erse wiz yer phanny if it suited ye.

PS who the F is Brian Kelly???