+- 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 - 07-11-2015
28 days, apparently. I'd be astonished if they don't appeal.
RE: RIFC - Paigntonhibby - 07-11-2015
(06-11-2015, 21:02)Larry-AV Wrote: This 'sporting advantage', derived from extra income, has been present in Scottish football virtually from Day One.Larry,yer as big a slaver as that other pair o' 1st class welts,trus and coop. youse are like the 3 f#cking stooges. having a bigger crowd is a fair sporting advantage,dodging tax tae get players ye couldnae otherwise attract tae yer club is an unfair sporting advantage. jesus f#cking wept, what does it take. please take yer heids oot the sand :doh
Strip out all the extras and variables and go to a flat-rate admission price, the same for all clubs, then :
... if your stadium is 50K or 60K and none of your opponents are above 26K, then you have a permanent 'sporting advantage', based upon income.
Maybe both Rangers and Celtic should be stripped of all their League Titles and Cup honours ???
This all being in the name of 'sporting integrity', of course.
RE: RIFC - Fredstersafool - 07-11-2015
It's futile Paignton they are blinkered lunatics they can't see the forest for the trees.
RE: RIFC - St Charles Owl - 07-11-2015
(07-11-2015, 16:23)Trusevich Wrote: 28 days, apparently. I'd be astonished if they don't appeal.
So would I but what do they gain by appealing?? Serious question!! How much money do BDO hold from the administration etc, and surely there is a list of creditors waiting to get their share. I assume HMRC would go to the top of that list which would mean everyone else gets a lower amount. But in reality what do BDO gain if they win this, its not them that physically owe the money is it, yet wouldn't they incur costs to appeal? They just disperse the money they hold, to whoever is owed anything!!
RE: RIFC - Larry-AV - 08-11-2015
To all those who say players would not have come to Rangers without the extra income gained through EBTs, I ask.
1} How many players and how much money was involved ... do you know ?
2} Would the players have come to Rangers anyway, irrespective of EBTs ?
3} If EBTs had not existed, would SDM have found another way of increasing the players' wages ?
4} Is Rangers the only Club to have used tax avoidance scheme(s) and / or had an owner who spent beyond the Club's means ?
RE: RIFC - St Charles Owl - 08-11-2015
(08-11-2015, 03:05)Larry-AV Wrote: To all those who say players would not have come to Rangers without the extra income gained through EBTs, I ask.
1} How many players and how much money was involved ... do you know ?
2} Would the players have come to Rangers anyway, irrespective of EBTs ?
3} If EBTs had not existed, would SDM have found another way of increasing the players' wages ?
4} Is Rangers the only Club to have used tax avoidance scheme(s) and / or had an owner who spent beyond the Club's means ?
Larry, see attached link that seems to answer question 1.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-34118126
No one knows the answer to question 2 but there were some decent sized payments made to players.
Question 3 - as crooked as he appears to be I am sure he would have found another "loophole", whether that would have been illegal as well we will never know.
Question 4 - to be fair, as we stand today EBTs are not tax avoidance, they have been ruled tax evasion, pending a possible appeal by BDO. 5000 other UK companies used them as well but no mention of any other football clubs, 1500 of those companies have since paid the taxes after HMRC approached them with the demand to do so. As for over spending chairman, I think that's a different conversation, there is nothing illegal about overspending, the law only comes into that if they don't or can't pay it back and even then they have the protection of administration, something nearly half the football teams in England have done.
RE: RIFC - Fredstersafool - 08-11-2015
Q1,who cares it happened
Q2,Mibees Aye Mibees no but they did
Q3,Who knows how far he was prepared to go
Q4,Arsenal used them then paid the tax bill when found out likewise Chelsea,no they're not alone my own club overspent and subsequently suffered the consequences of that,but you know all that don't you??
RE: RIFC - hibeejim21 - 08-11-2015
question 2 is answered back in post 1085 i think with murrays statement to the First tier tribunal.
question 4 arsenal also used EBTs at one point but opted to settle up with HMRC back in 2005 i think. Celtic had one for juninho but again opted to declare it and pay the tax due. Rangers instead tried to cover up their usage and deceived the footballing authorities.
As for BDO they would they not be in an unusual position to appeal? HMRC are now the largest creditor and surely ALL the creditors will need to be consulted about a legal move? Murray perhaps could appeal on a personal basis i suppose when he receives his assessment but that would mean retracing the same route FTT/upper tribunal/COS - the latter who's decision is binding in scotland. The costs for either going to the supreme court would be hefty. And as sir charles says they will have to weigh up the gain of doing so. Guess we will just need to wait and see.
RE: RIFC - Paigntonhibby - 08-11-2015
(08-11-2015, 03:05)Larry-AV Wrote: To all those who say players would not have come to Rangers without the extra income gained through EBTs, I ask.Murray has already admitted that without EBTs they probably widnae have been able tae bring in the same standard o' players , ergo however ye try tae dress it up or whitabootery ye use unfair sporting advantage was gained. Rangers cheated
1} How many players and how much money was involved ... do you know ?
2} Would the players have come to Rangers anyway, irrespective of EBTs ?
3} If EBTs had not existed, would SDM have found another way of increasing the players' wages ?
4} Is Rangers the only Club to have used tax avoidance scheme(s) and / or had an owner who spent beyond the Club's means ?
(08-11-2015, 03:05)Larry-AV Wrote: To all those who say players would not have come to Rangers without the extra income gained through EBTs, I ask.Murray has already admitted that without EBTs they probably widnae have been able tae bring in the same standard o' players , ergo however ye try tae dress it up or whitabootery ye use unfair sporting advantage was gained. Rangers cheated
1} How many players and how much money was involved ... do you know ?
2} Would the players have come to Rangers anyway, irrespective of EBTs ?
3} If EBTs had not existed, would SDM have found another way of increasing the players' wages ?
4} Is Rangers the only Club to have used tax avoidance scheme(s) and / or had an owner who spent beyond the Club's means ?
RE: RIFC - Trusevich - 08-11-2015
You'd have to prove that, though, and David Murray saying 'perhaps' isn't any kind of proof.
You can't prove it, and you never will be able to, so you either want decisions based on proof or you want to punish regardless.