Sevconians seem particularly thick are perceiving the difference between an EBT, legal or otherwise and Dual Contracts. EBTs, even if they are used well within the boundaries of tax legislation are NOT the concern of the SPL or their investigation. The panel are not investigating whether rfc were due to pay tax or not. What is of concern to the SPL panel led by Lord Nimmo Smith is whether there were dual contracts with players, no matter the purpose or destiny of the funds from those dual contracts. SPL and UEFA and so FIFA regulations state that a footballers contract must disclose all of his payments, even those for image rights. If a club fails to declare all earnings related to football, then they are in breach of regulations and have CONSEQUENTLY fielded inelligible players. The CONSEQUENCE of fielding inelligible players is that the club is deemed to have lost any game in which an inelligible player was fielded by 3-0. The outcome for such a club is that any titles AWARDED by the footballing body, in this case the SPL can and should be stripped and awarded to the club which came second or were competing finalists in the trophy. In summary, the SPL panel is investigating whether rfc HAD OPERATED DUAL CONTRACTS? It is possible that rfc did not operate dual contracts, but are still liable for the outstanding tax. It is likely that if they are liable for the outstanding tax it is because they operated the EBT in lew of payment of wages or bonuses or income from football. If this were the case and rfc did not reveal this to the SPL or SFA and had other contracts with the players, which they had deemed not to be income from football then they wouldnt see the reason for declaring this to the SPL. The panel is not investigating whether rfc are liable to pay tax. The panel is not investigating whether rfc could have afforded those players. The panel is not investigating whether David Murray would have subsumed the debt accrued had they not operated EBTs. THEY ARE INVESTIGATING, SIMPLY........................WERE THERE ANY DUAL CONTRACTS? SIMPLY WERE DUAL CONTRACTS USED? If they were and income from football went undeclared, then rfc will be deemed to have fielded inelligible players in the SPL and other Scottish competitions and will have them stripped. SFA and SFL have said they have no plans to strip trophies. Of course they must adopt that stance, otherwise they are prejudicing the outcome of the investigation. If rfc are found guilty of using dual contracts, then the SFA and SFL must strip trophies, otherwise UEFA will want to know why cheating is being rewarded. The idea that rfc players would lose their medals even though they are innocent.......well if someone tells you they will pay your wages in a brown envelope instead of a DD into your bank account, would you not be suspicious, or if they tell you they know a good tax dodge would you not be suspicious? What about the innocent players and fans of QOS, Falkirk and other clubs who were robbed of the one day of glory in the history of their club, or the one day in their lives when they will play in a final or the Celtic players and their families and the fans who were denied the celebration of a title??? What about those who are COMPLETELY innocent? The innocent rangers players argument to me, is akin to the guy who buys a underpriced new electrical good from someone in pub and then complains when the polis come to take it away.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-18169502 "Celtic confirmed that it established one EBT scheme in April 2005, which BBC Scotland understands was for the benefit of the Brazilian midfielder Juninho Paulista. The scheme was worth £765,000 but the club did not declare the trust payment to the Scottish Football Association or the Scottish Premier League." The BBC does not state it's sources - but if the statement is true I would struggle to see why Celtic have no case to answer if Rangers do have a case (albeit on a much much larger scale).
celtic have no case to answer cos pistol pete says so do we have no case to answer as the sfa was told about it and all payments were declared?
If Rangers handed over the correct information they might be cleared as well . The question is ,do they have this information ???
That's actually why I want to do it ... far to many articles about the huns even though people claim not to give a **** about them/are no longer our rivals/dont miss them from the SPL.
Celtic most likely ran that EBT legally so there would be nothing that could constitute a players salary unlike rangers.
I'm guessing here but this is my take on it Celtic ran an EBT but paid tax on it, but its still a loan Rangers ran an EBT, didnay pay tax, sent letters saying they didnay have to pay it back, making it a contractual payment Savvy?
One thread would be like having a file entitled 'General' and dumping everything into it which didn't fit anywhere else - an absolute no, no in the offices world of industry and commerce. I would have thought, the more threads the better - we've waited a long time to see them get their deserved come-uppance and every scandalous topic that crops up is surely worthy of it's own thread, if only to wind them up ...
Maltese Mick. I was told that whilst Juninho was receiving his EBT Celtic appointed a new Chairman.( His name slips my mind). This new Chairman realised what Celtic was doing and he hit the roof and ordered the EBT to be stopped immediately and paid the back tax that was owed, hence Celtic has not got a case to answer.
Oh dear! Exactly what I suspected. Juninho signed a contract to play with Celtic. That contract was submitted to the SFA SPL. When J left the remainder of his contract was outstanding. This was payment of the contract submitted to SFA SPL. He left before the end of the contract, so Celtic agreed to pay the remainder of the contract, submitted to the SFA SPL, by means of an EBT. The full details of the contract were submitted. Simply, the severance aspect of his contract, that which he was due had he fulfilled the whole period of the contract was paid by an EBT. Dodo FC did the same with Dodds as I understand it. On the other hand rfc allegedly submitted to the SFA SPL a contract for over 60 players which did NOT include ALL wage payments for playing football. The rest of their wage was paid by means of an EBT which was not declared to SFA SPL and as such all these players were inelligible to play. Put simply, Celtic paid the remained of a contract all of which had been declared by means of an EBT rfc allegedly paid the PART of the actual wages by EBT, but this part was not allegedly declared.
The issue which concernd football associations is not the tax aspect of the EBT. Celtic paid the remained of a players contract, which had been submitted to the authorities. Rfc are accused of paying part of the players wages and bonuses by means of EBT, BUT DID NOT DELARE THIS TO AUTHORITIES, BUT INSTEAD PROVIDED PLAYERS WITH SIDE LETTERS THAT THEY PERSONALLY WERE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE TAX. HMRC will now pursue the individuals concerned, instead of the dead club. HMRC do not agree that the players are not liable, even though the club provided side letters. The football authorities argument with the dead club is that it operated DUAL CONTRACTS. Part of the players wage was paid by normal contract and the rest, undisclosed to the authorities was paid by EBT. If this is the case then those players were fielded inelligible and as such any game they played in should be retrospectively awarded to their opponents 3-0. This will CONSEQUENTLY mean that the titles and trophies won will be stripped from the dead club. I would be amazed if UEFA and FIFA are not sitting in the background directing or supervising and monitoring procedures. Cheats cannot be left with their ill gotten gains.
Yeah great isnt it Biggest scandal ever to hit British and maybe world football because of the timespan involved.
