Me n the two bears that sit next to me in work discussed this whole thing this morning - it was polite, we all came to a common consensus that it was a massive deal but it wasn't an exoneration - we all stated that none of us knew the law on it inside out and it was a far too complex and intricate technical case for any of us to assert superior knowledge and support/dispute the appeal being upheld. But then, we all agreed that, 40 years from now, some group of hofwits not born just now will be in a pub going. "Rangers were totally exonerated - they did no wrong and the taxman maliciously forced Rangers out of business." "Bullshit, wee man, the whole thing was only found to be illegal once everyone involved was deid - and wan o the judges was an Ibrox season ticket holder!!" One thing is that the outcome of all this means that this will probably not stop getting talked about in our lifetime. Which, whatever side of the fence you're on, is pretty ****ing depressing. I've already overheard a couple of nuggets talking on the train this morning who seem to have thought this was a criminal case
Oh well, if you think. You're not one to be known to get things wrong are you? That McGillivan was wrong. Yeah got it.
True, none of us know the applicable tax law. However, the tribunal did, and found in our favour. Vindicated. Exonerated.
If the EBTs were found to be loans and not contracts for playing how can that be a dual contract and in breach of rules?
I'm not sure but this may be of interest: 161. Side-letters, of course, had not been registered with the football authorities, the SFA and SPL. The spirit of their rules was that the whole contract terms should be registered. Suspiciously, no evidence was led as to who decided that the benefits in terms of the side-letters should not be registered. Non-registration of side-letters was incompatible with both authorities’ policing and disciplinary powers. For example any fines imposed on players would customarily reflect the disclosed wage. Nondisclosure would thwart the authorities’ powers. On any view, Mr Thomson argued, Rangers could have sought a ruling from the SFA or SPL about disclosure of side-letters but, clearly, they had chosen not to do so. There was a conscious decision to conceal their existence, and that extended even to the Club’s auditors.
Out of interest, where did you get that quote from? Like I said, surely loans don't have to be disclosed to the SPL, as they WERE NOT part of their wages, or at least thats what the judges said yesterday.
Yep, the EBT's are mainly about disclosure of player remuneration as far as the SFA/SPL are concerned.
Well, the second bit is hypothetical so, no, it didn't happen. The first bit did happen as they are not utter dickheads like you. The last bit also happened on the train. What bit do you doubt? That people with differing opinions or approaching something from different angles can come to a consensus about something? Jesus Christ, you need to leave Ulster, son
That's for the SFA/SPL investigation to decide. The tribunal ruling really has nothing much to do with it, and it's everything to do with SFA/SPL rules about player remuneration.
From the report, and before anyone accuses me of reading the report can I just say that I have not read any of it, this was pointed out by someone else.
No worries there. Anybody else find it amusing how much they analyse paperwork / court documents etc when it involves us. Tell the truth, none of this happened, son.
Monaco has a point, though. The SPL investigation has been held off to find out the outcome of the BTC. If payments are classified as loans, it probably will make an impact. On the individual investigation stuff mentioned earlier, I think they did go through every single case which is why it took so long. This Daily Mail piece includes the quote I read in the Metro this morning which says that 35 of the individuals arrangements ("and in certain other limited instances") are still liable to Rangers oldco. Putting 2 and 2 together, it looks like those payments will form the background to the SPL investigation. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2235983/Rangers-win-tax-appeal-principle.html And Medro's a homo
