Jesus ****ing Christ, I really do ****ing despair at times. More blatant ****ing lies from a man who is fast becoming as bad as Leggo and McMurdo et al. I suppose he does have to cover his fat arse though because he's been spouting the same tired ****e since Minty told him the "Facts" and he really cannot do an about face now and say he was wrong, but why he feels the need to nail his colours to the mast yet again really is beyond me. Doubtless if the SPL inquiry does find Rangers guilty of emplying Dual Contracts we will read Jabba telling us how Lord Nimmo Smith and his group were wrong, I mean they must be, Jabba here knows everything about EBTs and he has decided in his wisdom that Rangers are innocent. Nothing to see here, move along spiteful jealous Timmy. The man is a ****ing joke. THIS might stick in the craw of those Holy Willies who believe EBT payments to have been the work of the devil, or worse Rangers, but it might be time to drop this costly SPL charade. Financial mismanagement at Ibrox has already cost the game more than enough in legal fees but only the heartless and mean-spirited would continue to argue Rangers and their fans havenât suffered. Whether or not theyâve suffered enough is a debate which will still rage, mostly in the cyber domains of the deranged, but itâs nonsense to suggest they havenât been damaged. Theyâve lost status and credibility. Theyâve been docked points, fined, ridiculed and hounded. Theyâve been accused of cheating and phrases like âmatch fixingâ and âfinancial dopingâ are now routinely tossed into the mix, even in reasoned discussions. A huge, dark cloud, bloated with swirling accusations, stupidity, and hatred, sits over the case of Rangers and their use of Employee Benefit Trusts. The story has been distorted, in some cases by misunderstanding, but in others by deliberate design. Some argue they grabbed a handful of titles through financial deception and now these must be erased from the record books. The reasoning is Rangers won with players they couldnât have afforded if theyâd been paying tax on the full amounts. They cheated the tax man, the country and their fellow clubs. But did they really? The shenanigans which caused the collapse of Rangers are scandalous but, when you blow away myth and fantasy, an immense stretch of the imagination is required to declare Rangers cheated anyone. EBTs were not illegal in the 10 years Rangers used them and both the SFA and SPL were fully aware of them. They were never hidden and always declared in the audited accounts under the term Remuneration Trust. Rangers shut them down when the law changed in 2010 and also at that time it was said the club had been operating a dual-contract system in relation to the EBT. The SFA contacted Rangers and asked for an explanation, which was given. The SFA then granted Rangersâ licence to continue playing, just as they had done every year of the EBT era. The SPL didnât have any objections either at that time. Neither one of these bodies thought to question Rangers at any time in 10 years so what has changed? Why are the SPL, a body short of cash, spending money on another legal pursuit which may prove to be trivial? Even those supporters of other clubs, who believed EBTs were illegal for no other reason than they wanted it to be so just because it was big, bad Rangers, must accept they were above board. Unless, of course, they now choose not to believe the SPL, the very body theyâve been insisting must bring Rangers to task. In explaining why Celtic have no case to answer, even though they had an EBT for Juninho, the SPL have underlined that this form of payment was acceptable. But the crucial difference, according to the SPL, is Juninho didnât take any EBT payment until heâd left the club. The league say Rangers have to be investigated because their EBT use was widespread and their players took payments during Ibrox stints. Thereâs no denying Rangers had a huge number on EBT over a 10-year period but the SPL, if the documents before Lord Nimmo-Smith and his commission are thorough, will find quite a few of these players did exactly the same as Juninho. The SPL, it can be assumed safely enough, are questioning whether or not letters to players detailing their EBT are secondary agreements but Rangersâ lawyers insist these canât be described as contracts because EBTs are discretionary loans, or bonus payments, and not contractual. In fact, these payments are so bizarre that players get their loans which are to be repaid with interest at the end of an agreed period but actually, the money is rarely, if ever, given back. Juninhoâs payment was apparently a âgolden handshakeâ but for what? Not for working in a Celtic Park tea bar thatâs for sure. He got his payment for his contributions as a player and, rather than make him different from anyone at Ibrox, that makes him exactly the same. So, basically, what we are dealing with is a technicality. Rangers didnât attempt to hide the EBT but if in registering the players without making reference to the loan letters they breached any of the SPLâs rules, why werenât the errors picked up from year one? The SFA and SPL saw the annual accounts, saw the EBT and allowed Rangers to carry on regardless. Now, however, the SPL, or their lawyers, Harper Macleod, have found something wrong but are we saying Rangers should have titles taken away because of a technicality or the SPLâs own incompetence? If so, thatâs patently absurd. And it is petty in the extreme. Rangers, who had about 11 different chartered accountants on their board in the EBT years, would have known if the authorities had any problem with their papers and there would also have been an âinformalâ exchange of certain pieces of financial information between Rangers and Celtic. These two would have scrutinised one anotherâs annual accounts so if anything had been amiss with Rangersâ practice why wouldnât Celtic have brought it to light? If there is a problem why was it overlooked for so long and who will take responsibility at the SFA and SPL? The same people, incidentally, did nothing when alerted to the fact Craig Whyte wasnât handing over PAYE millions. Indeed, one SFA individual actually had dinner with Whyte late last year. Yet, he was allowed to carry on for months until Rangers slipped into administration. Iâm sorry but neither the SFA nor SPL can examine their own standards and behaviours and believe they did enough. I am not suggesting for one second the gameâs authorities are responsible for Rangersâ collapse. Neither was it an EBT habit, nor that outrageous level of debt run up by David Murray 12 years ago, which closed Rangers. Thatâs down to one man, Whyte, who got a winning club when the debt had been reduced to £18m. He should and could have been stopped before the damage became too severe and before HMRC had lost a fortune, although they themselves could have minimised the cost by acting earlier. They were well aware of Whyte through his previous dealings and might have taken the view he had bought Rangers hoping it would be put into liquidation if the big tax case ruling went against the club. Rangers would have been lumbered with a bill of around £50m and Whyte could have blamed HMRC for closure. It didnât play out that way and the verdict isnât expected now until October but why did the revenue allow Whyte to continue for so long when he wasnât handing over taxes? They were communicating with administrators Duff and Phelps over this issue and were offering payment plans which Whyte didnât use. Why? If theyâd taken action at the right time, instead of waiting until June, when they refused Charles Greenâs CVA offer and Rangers were plunged into liquidation, the cost to many of the creditors would have been much less. They are the real victims, not supporters who think theyâve been done out of a few titles.
From the midly insane to the downright logical. http://blogs.channel4.com/alex-thomsons-view/rangers-endorsed-downfall-book/2681
He's hit the nail right on the head, I am simply flabbergasted that Traynor has the unmitigated gall to write this tissue of lies, It makes me think that the MSM will never change, it's a sobering thought.
Russ is off the beel train tracks again. Traynor is a fat mess of a scribe. I dont actually read anything he says.
Perhaps we all overestimate Traynor and he is simply too thick to understand the difference between dual contracts and ebts. Junhino's ebt was part of his contract, which was fully disclosed to the SPL. RFC are accused of not declaring the payments made via ebts, which were not loans, but in fact part of the players payment for playing football. HMRC believe this to be the case and they have already found RFC guilty. We are awaiting the result of an APPEAL, not the initial hearing. HMRC are saying that the ebts were wages not a loan. A return for footballing services. We have to assume that they have a shed load of evidence on many many players since 1998(the time from which SPL are investigating). People like Traynor by misunderstanding (?) this issue are contributing to the victim culture among the Boyne Bampots. If the SPL strip titles, which I believe UEFA will instruct, perhaps not in a formal manner, them to do, there could be serious consequences, as the Boyne Bampots having had rubbish like the above read to them, will feel, mistakenly, that they are being persecuted and they will not stand idly by and let this happen. PEOPLE IN THE MSM COULD HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS UNLESS THEY CLEAR UP WHAT HAS ACTUALLY HAPPENED TO RFC, THE DEAD CLUB. BTW expect MSM to now use the propsect of civil unrest and a reason for not stripping titles, a prospect which they themselves have created.
Traynor is a lot of things but daft is'nt one of them, he knows what he's doing as he has always done, attempting to curry favour with the lunatic fringe of the Bears. He is playing safe and being purposefully ignorant but only on paper. I'd bet a pound to a pinch of ****e he knows exactly what the score is, even thick Celtic fans get it and the fact that he knows speaks volumes not only to his character, but the underlings at the Daily Record who put up with this disingenuous oaf.
The fact that he's peddling this irresponsible and dangerous garbage in the mainstream media makes him all the more repulsive and in allowing him to do it, his so-called bosses are shown up as, equally, morally reprehensible.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport...-the-ebt-accusation-came-from-within.18889295 FOR more than a decade, The Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith served as a judge in the Court of Session and the High Court. inShare.0Custom byline text: Michael Grant He is a Privy Counsellor so his opinion is good enough for the Queen. He was schooled at Eton before studying classics at Balliol College, Oxford. Charles Flint QC is one of the most respected experts in sports law in Britain, having acted as an advisor and an arbitrator in a series of complex and high-profile cases. Nicholas Stewart QC has been a Deputy High Court Judge in England for over two decades. He, too, is an internationally renowned authority on sports law and arbitration. Contextual targeting label: Sport Fair play, then, to whoever it was at the Scottish Premier League who had the nerve to tell his Lordship and the QCs that their time will be deliberately wasted during the Rangers/undisclosed payments hearings because the whole thing has been decided in advance. Guilty verdict and penalties: all done and dusted, pre-judged by the SPL itself before Nimmo Smith does what he's told and puts it in writing. That's how the conspiracy theory goes, at least. Lord Nimmo Smith, Flint and Stewart – among the finest legal minds in Britain – are at the head of the SPL's "Mickey Mouse" investigation (Charles Green's words) and its "kangaroo court" (Sir David Murray). Sadly, neither Green nor Murray will say so to their faces, because neither of them will turn up when the Independent Commission gets down to business in November. That's a shame, because the accusations are serious and ought to be taken seriously by all. Rangers, and Murray, should protest their innocence as long and loud as they like, as anyone would when faced with significant accusations. By not attending, no-one acting for the club can cross-examine witnesses or present a different interpretation on evidence which is heard. Instead of simply maintaining that they can comfortably defend themselves on all counts, there have been consistent attempts to undermine the credibility and motives of the investigation itself. The allegations against them weren't trumped up by an outsider: they originate from a former Rangers director, Hugh Adam. They are innocent unless proven guilty and are entitled to a fair and honest investigation by the SPL. After Adam's allegations, evidence to suggest they had a case to answer was collected by the SPL's lawyers, and a verdict will be reached and any punishment applied by an eminent judge and two QCs. At no point is any other club involved in the process. This isn't an investigation into using EBTs, remember, it's a probe into specific allegations of SPL rule-breaking. It began with a statement on March 5 which said: "The SPL board has instructed an investigation into the alleged non-disclosure to the SPL of payments made by or on behalf of Rangers FC to players since July 1 1998." Adam said of the alleged payments: "They weren't included in the contracts. That was the whole point of them." Now, either you believe Adam's version of events or you don't, but were the SPL supposed to ignore that? The initial investigation to find evidence substantiating Adam's claims was carried out by Harper Macleod, the law firm which has acted for years as the SPL's retained lawyers (and therefore represented Rangers, as an SPL shareholder, too). This has angered many Rangers supporters because Harper Macleod have also worked for Celtic, who would be the primary beneficiaries of any potential stripping of Rangers' titles. Should the SPL have used another law firm to avoid all accusations of conflict of interest? Maybe, but what exactly is the innuendo here: that an established and respected company which is a member of the Law Society of Scotland would fabricate or suppress evidence in a football investigation? Seriously? Green has said: "The commission is not independent of the SPL. It has been appointed by the SPL. I don't question the impartiality of the individual panel members but whatever decision they reach is a decision of the SPL." Well, yes, of course it is. But if there is no question of their impartiality, that is all an accused can ask for. This investigation has not "pre-judged" Rangers nor, despite all the fevered debate about it, have they been condemned to being stripped of titles. They may be cleared just as they might not. Any punishment imposed on them could have nothing to do with titles being taken away. No-one can possibly know how Nimmo Smith, Flint and Stewart will rule on the case. Ralph Topping, the SPL chairman, has been predictably mute and invisible while his league's investigation has been ridiculed, and given the sensitivities there should have been far more transparency and detail about why Rangers are being pursued over EBT payments while Celtic were not after using one to pay Juninho. But the fact remains: Rangers alone face a major investigation because they are the only SPL club accused of making widespread undisclosed payments. And the accusation was made by one of their own the heralds view on the investigation. maybe a wee bit more balanced...
The Herald's unbiased/balanced view should be sent to Traynor and his bosses at the Daily Record for their comment - no doubt, however, they would again, in time-honoured fashion, simply ignore the facts. (I realize that is dubious use of the word 'honoured' in the same sentence as Traynor and the DR.)
What a pile of bollocks. I cannot believe such ill informed **** and downright lies made it into any NEWS paper. That is your journalist of the year right there.
For once I think Trevor has a good point. I don't read Traynor's ****e unless it's on here and even then I skim through most of it just to be able to contribute something to the thread should I feel it requires my views. (Un?)Fortunately not many of them do and I usually only put something here out of boredom. Saying that, Russ, if more people quetioned the Nazi propaganda in the 1930s maybe Hitler wouldn't have rose to power the way he did so keep up the good work (only don't expect me not to cringe whenever you quote him). PS - Is my new signature obsessive? MD seems to think it is, I noticed him beelin over it yesterday
