I would guess that a letter saying you don't have to pay something back would indicate it wasn't a loan...but the biggest recipient, Murray, wouldn't have written himself a side letter so wouldn't be breaking the rules of an EBT I guess HMRC wanted them all to be classed as illegal on evidence from just some of the cases
His legal action would appear to be against people he says prejudicated against him. I think that would be libel-type damages and would, presumably, be against RTC.
If the EBTs were found to be loans and not contracts for playing why are the SPL bothering with their investigation? And what the **** are "side letters" or whatever every **** seems to be banging on about? I didn't have the pleasure of watching that BBC thingy the other month.
BBC were pretty confident on these side letters existing. Why would any player cooperate with any investigation?
The SPL investigation is about whether or not using EBT's, particularly the way in which they were used, to remunerate players is in breach of SFA rules and also if there was full disclosure to the SPL/SFA. The side letter thingy was part of the way in which EBT's were used. Canny mind exactly how.
If you were told that wages you were paid over years were in facr loans that you had to pay back how would you feel?
It would be surprising if they are in breach of the rules surely? Is the whole thing about dual contracts, not about having 2 contracts for playing and yesterdays verdict said it hadn't anything to do with playing, it was just a simple loan to help poor people make ends meet?
