Yes I realise that, but how can a loan be technically classed as remuneration? By the definition of loan, surely it isn't?
I don't know enough of it to disagree, but personally I don't see how the outcome of the tribunal, which was after all about tax liability, has any bearing on the SFA rules as regards player remuneration. Tribunal won or lost, how Rangers used the EBT's in regards to those SFA rules haven't changed. My understanding is that the crux of the SFA/SPL investigation is about disclosure. It'll all come out in the wash soon enough
This is true, I reckon, but the question then would be: Do you need to declare a loan? Whether it's a technicality or not, it forms at least a decent defence (for the cases involved)
I dunno either, mate. It'll be up to the investigation. Is paying players via a mechanism like a loan against the SFA rules? Was the mechanism used to pay the players fully disclosed to the SFA? Being optimistic I would hope that during the decade EBT's were used the SFA saw RFC's books and knew what was going on. We'll find out soon enough.
As soon as it came out I printed it out and sat at my desk with a highlighter. My boss went to speak to me but I Sssshhhhhhed him and told him that I had a "special project"
Gambol, my learned friend, I think you are slightly missing the point! You say above that, "was the mechanism used to pay the players fully disclosed to the SFA" Surely, they didn't need to, because the EBT wasn't part of their pay, it was a loan and that is why no tax was paid on it, or in fact maybe it is me who is missing the point, it has happened before.
As far as I can see, paragraph 161 means absolutely **** all to be honest. Why would a loan have to be registered?
The nutjobs on twitter @Luigi19701 @tomenglishsport I accept you've had little time to react to FTTT, but have you read paragraphs 159,161&163 of judgment? I suggest you do. @tomenglishsport @Luigi19701 Those sections are from the HMRC QC, not the tribunal judges So much anger. So much rage.
If the loan payments don't count as remuneration (which they probably/mibbes/couldasorta will), it'll be these 35 or so that do count. If they are proven to have had pre-arranged payments outside of their official contract, any games they played in will be 3-0 losses. The pressure that's going to be put on any investigation is going to be massive, though. I wouldn't like to have that job
Spewing about it, I mean WTF. I couldn't give a **** one way or another, but these ****s are reading 100page dossiers trying to find scraps to cling on to!! Seriously, why the **** do they care? Why is it so important to them?
Given Medro's OP in his GC thread, I'd say that particular characteristic isn't necessarily discriminative of football team followed.
The point, in the end, is that we don't know what the SFA rules are regards player payment. The investigation will tell us what, if any, were breached.
You lot on here are terrible for it. How many posts have dev and co made about us being 100% guilty, quoting nutters like RTC.
I know. You can just picture them sitting reading through pages upon pages of boring ****e. Diccus looks to have taken yesterdays outcome particularly bad.
I thought the rules were that all kind of payment had to be disclosed? Loans aren't payments though, in fact I'll do the investigation for the SFA, I bet I would do it in a lot quicker time and I would only charge slightly more.
