+- Sports Babble - sports forum (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Football (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=1)
+--- Forum: Scottish Football League (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=24)
+---- Forum: Scottish Premiership (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=26)
+----- Forum: Rangers (https://www.sportsbabble.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=131)
+----- Thread: RIFC (/showthread.php?tid=130)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 04-11-2015
A statement of fact. It seems that you're the one that struggles with simple terminology.
Comprehension deficit disorder.
RE: RIFC - Maroon 1 - 04-11-2015
(04-11-2015, 16:13)Trusevich Wrote: A statement of fact. It seems that you're the one that struggles with simple terminology.
Comprehension deficit disorder.
It's my cross Trus, I'm trying to bear it well
RE: RIFC - supercooper - 04-11-2015
Looks like Freds self imposed exile is over.
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 04-11-2015
(04-11-2015, 16:19)Maroon 1 Wrote: It's my cross Trus, I'm trying to bear it well
Try harder.
RE: RIFC - edgie - 04-11-2015
Just a quick visit guys I know you missed me
To say told you so
and pull up trus for lying again
Trus the post by maroon was right the full first paragraph of the judgement did read
"A scheme involving payments to various trusts set up in respect of executives and footballers employed by the former Rangers Football Club amounted to “a mere redirection of emoluments or earnings” and was accordingly “subject to income tax”."
note "former Rangers Football Club " not "former Rangers Football Club ltd"
nice to see the law knows rangers died
So years of tax evasion guilty
years of lying to the SFA guilty
At least the new club isn't guilty of that
I suspect this post wont pass the mod but hy ho
its a lovely day
RE: RIFC - Larry-AV - 04-11-2015
From AVillaFan, Scottish Football thread, my answers to questions posed :
A company has the 'legal personality' which enables it to enter into contracts, etc, Dimitri.
The 'stripping titles' and 'admin' are the delusions of fantasists, such as the character Patrick cited. *
What intrigues me is this : who pays the tax ?
If the players' pay slips showed tax deducted, even though it was not, which is what happened with Whyte, then the employer pays, because the tax shown as 'paid' was not paid by the employer.
With the EBTs I do not know what, if anything, was shown as deductions, so I go by the logic of income.
If the monies paid were income, then the relevant income tax will have to be paid by the recipients of that income.
* Says Chris McLaughlin, Celtic 'fan' and professional fucktard.
RE: RIFC - hibeejim21 - 04-11-2015
The players were covered by side letters that guaranteed the salary.The liability lies with their employer. As they are being liquidated currently,that is now BDO.
So from what i can grasp HMRC will lodge a claim with them. They won't care about the players, BDO might be able to go after murray and the board however.
RE: RIFC - Paigntonhibby - 04-11-2015
(04-11-2015, 16:03)Trusevich Wrote: You need to learn the difference between 'club' and 'company'.no' sure I'm that bothered aboot the argument whether its club/company or newco/oldco, what I think is without doubt,despite what the muppets at the SFA say there must have been a sporting advantage as rangers were able tae afford better players using EBTs than they would otherwise have been able tae. that was surely the whole point o' EBTs
You're not the first, and you won't be the last to make that basic error, Moron1. In fact, I'm not entirely convinced you haven't made that error before. Is it deliberate?
Plus, titles can't be stripped because an independent SFA investigation found that no sporting advantage was gained.
You're rubbish at this trolling lark.
(04-11-2015, 15:33)Fredstersafool Wrote: Formerly the Rangers football club,good to see they recognise the old club is dead,
"Formerly The Rangers Football Club PLC".
Dullard.
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 04-11-2015
Lord Nimmo Smith's independent enquiry found there was no sporting advantage. That's the end of it.
There's no evidence to support the idea that Rangers couldn't have afforded those players without using EBTs, or that those players wouldn't have joined Rangers without them.
And let's not forget that using EBTs wasn't illegal. It was a tax avoidance scheme, not tax evasion.
Boy, some people are desperate for it though.
RE: RIFC - Paigntonhibby - 04-11-2015
(04-11-2015, 21:00)Trusevich Wrote: Lord Nimmo Smith's independent enquiry found there was no sporting advantage. That's the end of it.lets get this straight, I for one couldnae care less whether cups and titles have tae be given back or no' but how can anybody say there was no sporting advantage ,if they could have afforded these players why bother wi' EBTs. the difference between avoidance and evasion is a wee bit foggy. evade and avoid mean the same thing actually
There's no evidence to support the idea that Rangers couldn't have afforded those players without using EBTs, or that those players wouldn't have joined Rangers without them.
And let's not forget that using EBTs wasn't illegal. It was a tax avoidance scheme, not tax evasion.
Boy, some people are desperate for it though.