So two if the three judges on the EBT tribunal found that EBTs were loans and not payments. Rfc fans claim that proves they did not cheat, despite the club admitting liability for the 5 players prior to the hearing. Raises the moral issue, is tax avoidance morally correct? Well what about ISAs? Answer, ISAs were used by the banking system to encourage ordinary people to save rather than spend, because enormous amounts of money from the richest people was being invested in all kinds of tax avoidance schemes and liquidity was severely limited. Big companies this week have been targeted by large groups of people objecting to legal, but morally incorrect tax avoidance and many competitors have actually criticised such companies claiming that tax avoidance is essentially unfair competition, since larger sums of money can be reinvested without borrowing at high interest rates. Although all of this is perfectly legal apparently, evidence shows us that the general public view tax avoidance schemes as immoral and the reason is obvious. They starve the public purse of monies required to meet the needs of the NHS etc. In football terms, tax avoidance schemes definitely allow competitors to attract players on remuneration payments or alleged loans, which may never be repaid, thus creating unfair competition. It will be very interesting to see the reaction of fans in the EPL when HMRC go after clubs which have utilised tax avoidance schemes. Certainly, one large coffee chain has felt the ire of the general public, yet their scheme was legal. Does make you think though, with this deprivation of the public purse, how supporters of, or those who condone such, would feel if a loved one were to be denied vital health care because the purse was empty. We are already seeing this with the cuts to benefits, some of which will hit the poorest I society. HMRC estimate that the public purse has been deprived of £1billion in footballing circles alone and over £3billion overall.
have to say i am totally over the ebt / dual contract thing right now. when the spl probe the dual contracts my interest may pique. the argument is also pretty pointless right now. celtic fans call them cheats rangers fans say they aren't.
Your gripe is with capitalism not rangers. The rich screw the poor, always have and always will, its life accept it.
They say a lot of things that are stupid. Painting the FTT result as exoneration doesn't tell the tale at all. I remain interested in it but not in an Us Vs Them way. That race is run and finished when that club ceased to operate. If it is from a moral perspective then our own house isn't exactly squeaky clean either. From a legal perspective Hector asked the wrong question and got the answer he didn't want. That was surprising but it did confirm that they absolutely breached football regulations. In light of how the findings have been received I am now less confident in the resolve of the Football Authorities to address the situation but on the evidence available one would think this would strengthen their hand.
Unless Charles green defends the charges I don't see how they can win. A judge can only make a decision based on the evidence put in front of them. If rangers don't explain there position then its an open and shut case.
I'm bored to the back teeth of it all now in truth. Doubtless things may change and an appeal is launched and so on and so on but i'm really not that interested right now. Rangers are not the first company nor will they be the last to screw the Taxpayer so i'm not going to lose sleep over it. For the most part they have been cleared, although it's clear what the EBTs were for, a blind man can see it but so what, there's nothing I or anyone on here can do about it however distasteful it is but I have come to the conclusion that this is very much like the OJ Simpson trial. Everyone expected a guilty verdict, even the people who thought he would be cleared. I still think he's guilty and nothing will change my mind but his "getting away with murder" does not matter one jot to me on a personal level, it has no effect on my life whatsoever. I was interested in the trial at the time, but I was not that bothered with the aftermath and subsequent trials. Let's just move on and talk about other things. At the moment Rangers have been vindicated, who really cares?
Yeah that's all I spoke about for 6 months. Never stopped talking about it neither I did. And by the way, if you really do use that as your sig from now on it says a lot more about you than a million words ever could.
Rebelsevco can we take it now that you have read the findings. I would have been happier if David Murray had been a wee bit open with us all. I would have thought their was a moral duty onDavid to inform us when he opened up Ibrox to soldiers as a good will gesture for the work he thought they were doing abroad, that there was also the little matter of avoiding/evading tax which could have mean't the soldiers could have had more protection abroad. In saying this I am not saying his EBTs were illegal, that has yet to finally determined but some tax was avoided, legally or illegally and his troops may have been deprived.
I thought it hadn't been ruled on, as I thought there was an application for appeal. Very important I know Rebelsevco had not got time to read the verdict over the first couple of weeks and maybe still needs more time.
Aye, the ****in bin. Guy got pelters on Wednesday for trying to start a "Stand up if you hate Rangers" (he was pished out his nut) by fans correctly pointing out that when on the verge of qualifying for the last 16 of Champions League, that lot shouldn't even be entering your ****ing head...
Aye, but if ****s wanna talk about it then they want to talk about it. I don't know the Sevco scores. I don't care about them as a team. I am intrigued by the share issue and the mechanism to flog it to dummies. I do care about the Rangers EBT issue though.
A thought regarding the dual contract issue and the compromising position Nimmo Smith could place the SFA in. Say he finds that the paper work was ok and that these loans were included in the registration documentation to the SFA, then eventually HMRC win their case and the loans are deemed to be payments, consequently HMRC may take the view that the SFA were complicit in that they did not inform them of the tax case involved. Would the SFA be willing to take such a chance? If the appeal from rfc is reversed and the SFA say the loans were registered as part of the players contracts then their reputation would nation wide and in the football world be in tatters. HMRC could take a dim view of their part if the case is reversed and the SFA knew about the loans. UEFA may also be a little displeased if all this came to pass. NS must be cursing HMRC for taking all this the UTT. Will be very interesting to see the outcome
