Good Morning,
A number of years ago I sat and watched while the late David Will, one time chairman of Brechin City, former President of the Scottish Football Association and Vice President of FIFA, peered over the upper rims of his glasses at the assembled board and management of St Johnstone Football Club and proceeded to brand them all as a “shower of thrawn buggers!”.
The reason for the tongue in cheek outburst from Scotland’s highest ranking official from the world of football was the organisation of the centenary dinner celebrating 100 years of the Perth Club— which the club saw fit to hold well outside the centenary year. Will had been invited to speak as a guest at the dinner ( yes Mr Cosgrove I was there ), along with then manager Alex Totten and Craigie Veitch the former sports editor of the Scotsman.
For those who are not familiar with old Scots words, Thrawn can have a couple of meanings which are very similar. If someone is being obstinate, stubborn, uncompromising, perverse or intractable then in auld Scots we say that he or she is being thrawn. Equally, the original meaning has been said to be crooked, twisted, misshapen or deformed. A tree could be thrawn, as could someone’s arm or other part of the body. To be thrawn-leggit was to have a crooked leg.
These meanings then sort of morphed into meanings like difficult or contrary, and so twisted and crooked in that sense, and when David Will called St Johnstone a shower of “thrawn Buggers” he meant that they were being awkward, contrary and perverse in holding a centenary dinner when it wasn’t actually the centenary. He was of course being lighthearted.
That episode came to mind this week when I read the latest statements from Alastair Johnston and Charles Green. Both set out an argument which suits their individual purposes and adopted perspectives, and both perhaps chose to ignore counter argument or salient facts which would obviously derail their logic and train of thought. With the greatest of respect to both men— what a pair of thrawn buggers!!!
In that vein let me recap as to where I think we stand on this September morn in relation to the EBT debate, the question of “Club” and the Independent enquiry into payment outwith contract.
Clearly, all of these issues are closely linked but each stands in its own wee pocket or chapter, and when taken together they serve to make a whole book or paint an overall scene.
The EBT issue has been repeatedly explained on the RTC blog and elsewhere but at the risk of repeating what is already known the fundamentals are as follows:
Employee Benefits Trusts under certain circumstances are or were a perfectly legal business and accounting tool.
However, in order for the trusts to provide substantial tax advantages, any reward, remuneration or compensation they provide to a beneficiary must not form part of their contract of employment or work package. If this rule is not strictly adhered to, then tax is payable on the sums “given” to the employee, with the employer being liable for tax and national insurance contributions of any employee.
It is alleged by HMRC, that a number of persons who were at one time employed by Rangers PLC have received benefits by way of a specific EBT. Further, the benefits which these employees received were clearly related to their contracts of employment and so these payments are liable to tax, together with interest for late payment and penalties for non-declaration and so on.
This is denied by Rangers PLC and by Murray International Holdings, and MIH have instigated and conducted an appeal against the HMRC view, with that appeal being determined by an independent tax tribunal (The FTT). The basis of their argument appears to be that the benefits received by the beneficiaries were nothing to do with MIH or Rangers and that these payments were purely discretionary and at the instance of the trustees of the trusts concerned– none of whom have any connection with Rangers PLC or MIH. Therefore– there is no tax payable.
Against this there seems to be a plethora of evidence which contradicts this stance including a number of side letters or second contracts which show that any payments to these EBT’s were indeed contractual and part of an overall contract of employment “package”– and if that is deemed to be the case then tax, interest and penalties are indeed, and always were, due.
These contracts or side letters then seem to fly in the face of the documentation lodged with the SPL and later the SFA, as both bodies require sight of all contractual documentation relating to players remuneration and their terms and conditions of employment. Contracts have to be in standard form and lodged with the appropriate bodies to ensure that the player is in fact properly registered to play for the team.
Further, the rules of football prohibit any player being paid by a third party, and so payments made to a player by someone other than his employer is a breach of that rule.
It is this issue that the Nimmo Smith Tribunal is to investigate and rule upon.
For their part, Rangers PLC appear to argue that the existence of EBT’s were always declared in the notes of their accounts, and so the footballing authorities should have known that they were in use at the club. More recently, Alastair Johnston has stated that the club did receive a request for clarification from the SFA in 2011 to which the Rangers PLC board responded disclosing documents ( although he does not specify what documents ) over and above the normal documentation sent re player contracts. Johnston has gone on to state that there was no response or follow up whatsoever from the SFA, and the appropriate UEFA licence simply arrived in the post without further ado. He concludes that as a result of the documentation sent, the SFA must have known at that time that the EBT payments were being used for “player compensation” purposes.
Now, AJ argues that if any misdemeanour or breach of rules has occurred it does not merit the much discussed and publicised “stripping of titles” and that any failure on the part of the Rangers PLC board amounts to no more than an oversight or an administrative error which does not justify the ultimate penalty.
Let’s just pause there and remember who and what AJ actually is in life. Alastair Johnston holds the posts of vice-chairman and member of the board of directors of International Management Group, the leading international sports and entertainment group. Now everyone knows that IMG was formed by Mark McCormack and represents sports stars as their agent. However what is less well known is that the majority of IMG’s work comes from broadcasting – not necessarily mainstream broadcasting – but the broadcasting of certain events to mobile phones and so on and in this context the company works with the likes of Vodafone and other major service providers in the sector. Further the company has the rights to market and broadcast the sports activities of a huge number of schools and colleges in the US as well as music channels, entertainment and so on.
I raise this aspect for one very important reason.
That entire industry is based on one thing and one thing only and that is………… a Licensing system. Broadcasters of any sort obtain the rights to broadcast by way of a licence. They licence content, they licence by area and geographical location, they licence for set time periods,they share licences, sell licences, create licences and terminate licences. Without a licence, they can have all the technology in the world, all the necessary content and so on but they are not able to show it, sell it and profit from it. Proper licensing is vital!
Further, they are very precious about licences- and rightly so– because unless they have the licences tightly tied up, others in the same field can attempt to steal their content, their territory and their rights– all of which are valuable assets.
So go back again and look at all AJ’s comments about proper registration of contracts, about proper administration of documents and licence applications for players, UEFA competition and so against the background of him being a grand fromage in a major company whose absolute lifeblood depends upon proper licensing.
Do you remotely believe that the continual and prolonged inability to properly declare all relevent contracts and player documentation to a licensing body ( both SFA and SPL in this instance) can be merely an oversight or an administrative error?
Further, take a look at the accounts for Rangers PLC at least in the year ended 2005, where it is made very clear that the football management side of the business was working extremely closely with the board in all business and contract matters.
The SFA in particular fulfills a licencing function– a function which is so important that without passing the tests laid down, any club of no matter what size simply cannot play or participate in the sole sphere it is designed to participate and play in. There are strict rules about licences, and a duty on the SFA as well as Rangers PLC to make sure that all of the conditions that must be fulfilled in order to gain a licence have in fact been met. It is not a process that should be left to chance or a process that any major organisation would leave to a junior member of staff or without there being a company defined process and procedure to ensure that the applications and compliance issues are properly dealt with.
Further, if you think about how a footballer player signs for a club– the negotiations, the transfer fee, the personal terms, the contracts, the agents commission and so on, you will realise that a player signing and the terms of his contract – or contracts for that matter – cannot simply come about by accident and outwith the boards knowledge or consent.
In short, it is impossible. It is also impossible, in my respectful opinion, to proceed on a decade long process of administrative errors involving the repeated failure to disclose secondary contracts or side letters. As someone once said to me, there comes a point where a continued and continual series of repeated errors or omissions starts to look suspiciously like a plan!
However, if we were to take AJ’s comments at face value, and accept that there were repeated failures on the part of the Rangers Board by accident, then to be honest there would be every right for shareholders and investors to hold the Directors liable for such negligence. Directors regularly and properly insure themselves against such claims– so I wonder if AJ has paid his insurance premiums?
Further, if he as Chairman presided over such mismanagement, then no doubt his time at IMG is limited as I doubt such an organisation could afford to have such a dunderheid permanently ensconced in a senior managerial position.
However, AJ appears to be a positively straightforward chap when compared to Mr Green.
He of course is on record as saying that if the proposed CVA were to be rejected and the club forced into liquidation then the club dies, the history dies, and so on and so forth– but of course that was yesterday or the week before or even the week or months before that. That was the message that Mr Green wanted to convey at that time in the hope that HMRC would buckle down and accept the proposals.
Now, Mr Green seeks to sing a different tune, and recently latched on to Lord Nimmo Smith’s comments about the “club” being a continuing entity and capable of transfer from one owner to the next. He muses that if that is the case then the “club” may well in fact still be a member of the SPL and the SFA as no matter what happened to Rangers PLC, Rangers FC are ” a continuing entity” and therefore should not be forced to apply to rejoin any body which it was always a member of– such as the SPL and the SFA. Of course this then means that all the history and so on remains– despite what he himself said earlier!
Now of course, Charles makes for a good soundbite and is mad keen to ensure that as many Rangers fans as possible take up shares in “the club” when he offers them for sale.
Yet there is the problem,– shares in what are being offered for sale? According to Charles– and following his logic— he can offer as many shares in the Rangers Football Club Ltd for sale as he wants — but that company will not actually be Rangers FC– will it? If Rangers PLC was not actually Rangers FC– then what was it that David Murray was offering for sale all those years ago? Or could it be that Charles has just got it plain wrong?
You see for some reason he did not quote Lord Nimmo Smith in full– especially that part where the learned judge gave a brief description of his interpretation of the law of clubs.
For example Charles chooses not to comment on this sentence from the learned judge:
“This is not to say that a Club has legal personality, separate from and additional to the legal personality of its owner and operator. We are satisfied that it does not, and Mr McKenzie did not seek to argue otherwise. So a Club cannot, lacking legal personality, enter into a contract by itself. But it can be affected by the contractual obligations of its owner and operator.”
Earlier, Nimmo Smith said this:
“While it no doubt depends on individual circumstances what exactly is comprised in the undertaking of any particular Club, it would at the least comprise its name, the contracts with its players, its manager and other staff, and its ground, even though these may change from time to time.”
So let’s pause there.
A club is an undertaking— in other words any type of loose arrangement involving a group of people with a common purpose. If a club is not an incorporated club ( a limited company ) then to be anything other than a loose idea of a few folk getting together for a common purpose such as a holiday or a meal or to read a book or anything else– then of course it should have a formal constitution and a set of rules for its members.
So– where is the constitution for Rangers Football Club? Where are its rules of admission which says who can join? Are there certain rules that preclude you from joining? Is there a set limit on how many members there can be at any one time? Who are the officers of this club?
At the current time, Mr Green seems to be very keen on everything British and everything of a loyal and royal nature. So here is a quote from the pages of the Royal Yachting Association of Great Britain on the legal status of unincorporated clubs and so on.
“Since an unincorporated club has no legal status, it is incapable itself of owning property or being party to a contract. It is therefore standard practice to appoint trustees, who are usually required in the rules to comply with committee instructions, to hold the property (whether freehold land and buildings, yachts or a long leasehold of a reservoir) on behalf of the club members.”
Eh going by that statement – Rangers FC never owned Ibrox or Murray Park– and indeed can never own Ibrox and Murray Park. Someone had to be the trustee.
Further, it can never have been granted a licence to play football— you can’t grant a right to a non legal entity or to a body which has no legal status. You cannot accept a licensing application from a body which has no legal status. You cannot be employed by a body with no legal status.
Rangers FC has no constitution, no legal persona, is not allowed to own property ( heritable, moveable or intellectual), can’t enter into contracts and so on.
In short, Rangers FC is a body with no legal status– it does not exist and has never existed— unless it is to be found within the confines of Rangers PLC which everyone now recognises is in Administration and will soon be liquidated.
Still don’t believe me?
Ok here is a recent release by the Scottish legal commission setting out changes that they want to make to the law so that “clubs” can gain some legal status:
“In Scotland, and indeed throughout the United Kingdom, unincorporated associations are not recognised as entities separate from their members. Consequently, such organisations cannot carry out acts such as entering into contracts, owning property or engaging employees. The lack of legal personality can also give rise to unfortunate, and perhaps unforeseen, repercussions for members. For example, it is possible that, under the current law, a member of an unincorporated association could, by virtue of that membership alone, find himself or herself personally liable in delict to a third party injured at an event organised by the association. Further difficulties relating to this area of the law are set out in our Discussion Paper on Unincorporated Associations (DP 140) which was published at the end of 2008.
Our Report recommends a simple regime, with the minimum of administrative burdens, to ensure that associations and clubs are recognised as legal entities. Separate legal personality will be accorded to associations which satisfy certain conditions. The main conditions are that the association has at least two members; that its objects do not include making a profit for its members; and that it has a constitution containing certain minimum specified provisions. These provisions are: the association’s name; its purpose; membership criteria; the procedure for the election or appointment of those managing it; the powers and duties of its office-bearers; the rules for distributing its assets if it is dissolved; and the procedure for amending its constitution. Many associations will already have constitutions which contain these provisions but, for those which do not, we anticipate that style constitutions will be made available, free of charge, on the websites of organisations such as the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations”
Maybe Charles should seek some advice from the Scottish Council on Voluntary organisations? And perhaps he should note that part about not making a profit for members too!
Then again, as Lord Nimmo Smith has said the actual status of a club and who or what a club is depends on individual circumstances. So with regard to Rangers, let’s look at who would know– for example, who did Charles get “Rangers” from? Duff and Phelps of course — so what do they say?
Well they have stuck to their guns because in each and every report that they have issued to the court, the shareholders and the creditors they have included the following definition:
| Rangers / the Company / the Club | The Rangers Football Club Plc (In Administration), Ibrox Stadium, Glasgow, G51 2XD (Company number SC004276); |
Now that doesn’t really help Charles does it.
Ok so, lets ignore Craig Whyte because everyone knows that he was a diddy— let’s go to folk that are far more sensible– how about the Board of Rangers PLC before Craig Whyte– what did they have to say:
Well, here is a statement from May 2011 which seems to set out who and what the then Directors thought amounted to the club– and let’s face it– they should know!
“Further to today’s statement from Wavetower Limited (“the acquirer”), the Independent Board Committee of The Rangers Football Club plc (“the club”), comprising Alastair Johnston, Martin Bain, John Greig, John McClelland and Donald McIntyre, (”IBC”) would like to make the following statement:
“In recent weeks the IBC has been engaged with the acquirer and has secured an enhanced financial commitment from Wavetower for future investment into the club. The decision on the sale and purchase of the majority shareholding in the club firmly and ultimately rests between Murray MHL Limited (“MHL”) and Lloyds Banking Group (“LBG”).
“Although the IBC has no power to block the transaction, following its enquiries, the IBC and Wavetower have differing views on the future revenue generation and cash requirements of the club and the IBC is concerned about a lack of clarity on how future cash requirements would be met, particularly any liability arising from the outstanding HMRC case.
“Wavetower is purchasing MHL’s 85% shareholding in the club for £1 and the club’s indebtedness with LBG is to be assigned to Wavetower. This share transaction would ordinarily trigger a requirement on Wavetower under Rule Nine of The Takeover Code for a mandatory offer to be made to the other shareholders.
“Given this transaction structure and following discussions with the Takeover Panel, the IBC considers there to be no purpose in the acquirer making such an offer to acquire all other shareholdings at effectively nil value per share. Accordingly the IBC has agreed that the offer period for the club will now end.
“In agreeing that no offer should be made to all shareholders the IBC has insisted that the acquirer issues a document to all shareholders setting out the full terms of the transaction, comprehensive details on the acquirer and the sources of its funding and giving firm commitments to agreed future investment in the club.
“The IBC is committed to ensure that the transaction and future investment and funding proposals should be transparent to all the shareholders and supporters of the club”
Ah— that doesn’t really help Charles Green’s current argument either does it?
So here we are, on the cusp of the FTT ruling, with a share offering in the offing, and SPL enquiry scheduled for November and no doubt Mark Daly and the Panorama team beavering away in the background getting ready for another documentary.
The decision of the FTT may reveal yet more of what the bold AJ describes as “Administrative errors” by way of failing to administer EBT’s properly so resulting in a massive tax bill, and the SPL enquiry may reveal further “Administrative errors” in failing to properly record player contracts for a decade, with the result that players were never properly registered in the first place and so were illegal players during championship winning games.
Yet all that is history and in the past.
Today’s Rangers has a new hero, a new commander– even though who he works for is a closely guarded secret and remains a mystery to most of us who may be interested to find out who Charles Green really is and who he represents. He seems to attack certain quarters then retreat, antagonise and appease, and has a habit of constantly contradicting himself when it suits.
In the interim he reminds me of the most famous creation of the American writer Timothy Zahn who brought about a revival in the fortunes of the Star Wars franchise, bringing it widespread attention for the first time in years. He did this by creating a new villain to follow in the footsteps of the administratively challenged and ultimately vanquished Darth Vader.
Zahn describes this new villain’s command style as considerably different from that of Darth Vader and other typical Imperial commanders; instead of punishing failure and dissent, he promotes creativity among his crew and accepts ideas from subordinates. He is a tactical genius who has made extensive study of military intelligence and art, and is willing to retreat instead of making a stand in a losing battle.
His full name and his true origins are only known to a few select individuals of the Empire and the New Republic.
To quote Wikipedia:
“His name is ………… reminiscent of the old Scots word meaning Twisted ot Crooked.
The character’s name is……….. Thrawn.
I suspect that we are about to see some pretty Thrawn statements from a shower of Thrawn buggers as the late David Will would have said!
😉
The legalities will take time to reach a conclusion. Charles Green is not and never has been a Ranger fan. He is a businessman with a trail of failed companies. He simply wants to make money. Short term there will be an attempt to allow Rangers fans to make Charlie very rich. Lord Nimmo Smith and team and the FTT decision makers will simply and inexorably follow the law. This never ending story will have an ending eventually.
Being offered a lifeline (despite not being an associate member and not having accounts) to Div 3 will be the highlight of 2012 for “Rangers”. This will be a shipwreck bigger than Titanic.
Another damn fine post BRTH.:-)
Amazing how Craig Whyte’s honeymoon lasted long enough for him to essentially take RFC into administration and ultimately liquidation. Still RFC fans refused to see what everyone else could see as the administration happened right in front of them.
Yet once more the laptop loyal clap along to the new Green man’s tune never once breaking rank or questioning his motives and the fans follow on…..it seems to me they hate the rest of scottish football more than they love their own club as hatred is what motivates them into action more than anything else.
I watch and wonder what the next 3 months have in store for scottish football……..hopefully a breathe of fresh air where skullduggery and sevco threats are put behind all of us.
The force is with you BRTH
The Star Wars character Thrawn was, of course, killed:
*”Thrawn, after hearing reports from Wayland, died during the climactic Battle of Bilbringi at the hands of his Noghri bodyguard, Rukh, who had discovered the duplicitous oppression of Honoghr for which Thrawn was responsible. Rukh crept up behind Thrawn as he was sitting in his command chair and stabbed him through the chest from behind the chair. Thrawn’s last words were “But… It was so artistically done”.”*
So can we relax, knowing a similar fate may soon finally finish off Zombies FC?
NO.
Thrawn clones were left behind to be incubated. It still needed a Luke Skywalker to finish them off…
We’re not even near Extra Time yet.
I always enjoy the circularity of your posts BRTH. Very good.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01n0sx5
bomber brown coming up on off the ball
aye “Thrawn”….bra word …and so so apt…hahahaha …a bra bra post…as always…
Got the Thrawn reference straight off the bat, but, I’m sitting here thinking that we don’t need a Luke Skywalker.
We have our very own Yoda in RTC 🙂
For those living abroad, Tam and Stuart (and Bomber.) Live.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio/player/bbc_radio_scotland
wow, maybe the question now is if there is actually any legal behaviour going on at Ibrox…? Doesn’t look like it…
Bomber
“I wouldn’t be wanting to buy many shares.”
“Craig Whyte still owns the assets.” Bombers opinion.
BRTH
Superb post ploughing an expert furrow for laymen to tread its path.
Bomber coming across as a measured and intelligent individual.
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase
I’m still.waiting on someone to show me where RFC’s accounts ever declared to anyone that players were paid through EBTs.
Thanks BRTH,, a grand post.
Now a tangible atmosphere of anticipation in the wind.Goldener Oktober!
“The person who actually knows is David Murray. Why doesnt he come forward?” – Bomber.
Brown claims Whyte still owns the real estate and Ticketus still on the scene. Hence the rush for a share issue.
Fishnish at 12;43
Yes I believe he reads Proust,listens to Bach and is an advocate of Zen Buddhism.
Stuart to Bomber, “You have criticized SDM which kinda implies that you wont get a job for the Daily Record…” Lol all round.
Bomber is praised for being the only person from Rangers who has publicly apologised. However, he goes on to say that they have been punished enough. He claimed that the whole of Scotland hates Rangers but when a caller asked him to explain why, he didnt answer the question. He says EBT’s should just be left alone now as members of the governing bodies, who are now setting themselves up in judgement over Rangers, were themselves involved in “dodgy deals.”
I dont think he was referring to Campbell Ogilvie.
Brown playing the “Whatabouterry” card now……..Other clubs were using EBTs ……Cmon Bammer name names. We need to know…….
Bomber admits that Regan and Doncaster did everything they could to keep Rangers in SPL, then Div 1. Unfortunately the SFL clubs put paid to that.
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase
I’m still.waiting on someone to show me where RFC’s accounts ever declared to anyone that players were paid through EBTs.
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase
Alex Rae interview: ex-players are right to be worried. They can be forced to pay the tax Rangers didn’t.
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase
Alex Rae interview: Keevins didn’t ask him about his side letter? The one that paid him appearance money?
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase
Alex Rae interview: no risk of Rae falling out with Keevins eh? This is the standard we have come to expect from the Daily Record.
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase
Alex Rae: on helicopter Sunday, every RFC player would benefit from an EBT. Many would not have been there if paid less. It was cheating.
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase
Media asking ex-players about EBTs as if they are innocent bystanders. They cannot admit that it was a scam as they are still on the hook.
Rangers Tax-Case @rangerstaxcase
Alex Rae interview in the DR would have been a great place for him to say that RTC story on his EBT wasn’t true. #sevcophants
Tweetastic 😉
Shame. Caller states that Bomber is wrong. Rangers were not punished, they were not relegated, they were allowed into div 3 against the rules as they did not have required 3 years accounts. No response from Bomber.
It seems incredible that Bomber states that everyone in Scotland hates Rangers when it is clear that Rangers have been treated unfairly WELL.
So Tam’s column in the DR was cut/culled today? Whatever for…:-)
Bomber is on the money WRT our hero’s FC, Ticketus, and Mr Greens motives…how does he know? And what did Charles say to him to keep him quiet?
Alex Rae interview: ““I could have gone to Blackburn Rovers and played under Graeme Souness, and I know I’d have made more money there than I got from Rangers.”
Was that gross or net Alex?
doontheslope says:
September 29, 2012 at 13:14
4 0 Rate This
Bomber admits that Regan and Doncaster did everything they could to keep Rangers in SPL, then Div 1. Unfortunately the SFL clubs put paid to that.
_____________
20 mins before he said everyone in scotlands got an agenda againt the rangers
Excellent piece BRTH…
Off the ball….no challenge to the opinion from Bomber that Rangers were relegated…mmmm..Mr. Cosgrove…shame on you!
Against this there seems to be a plethora of evidence which contradicts this stance including a number of side letters or second contracts which show that any payments to these EBT’s were indeed contractual and part of an overall contract of employment “package”– and if that is deemed to be the case then tax, interest and penalties are indeed, and always were, due.
______________________________________________________________
A plethora of evidence, please show me one, just one example of dual contracts, if the EBT’s were legal what was the need for loans to be declared?
Excellent blog BRTH.
Informative and entertaining at the same time.
It is to your credit.
davis58 says:
September 29, 2012 at 13:47
Against this there seems to be a plethora of evidence which contradicts this stance including a number of side letters or second contracts which show that any payments to these EBT’s were indeed contractual and part of an overall contract of employment “package”– and if that is deemed to be the case then tax, interest and penalties are indeed, and always were, due.
______________________________________________________________
A plethora of evidence, please show me one, just one example of dual contracts, if the EBT’s were legal what was the need for loans to be declared?
=============================================
Rangers didn’t make loans to players. Rangers made payments into a sub trust for the players benefit.
There was no mechanism for Rangers getting the money back so it was a payment. They also had no power to grant or deny a loan, that was up to the trustees of the EBT.
Had they been able to guarantee the trustee agreeing the loan then the EBT would not have been an EBT. It would have failed a basic test.
You can keep going all you want with this “loan” nonsense. It seems to be the latest myth people keep repeating. It won’t change things.
So please guys, where are your nuclear events, so RTC/Goosy were going crazy on twitter, but where are the actual facts that he/she can substantiate, his/her nonsense is just more internet wink and a touch of the nose, I know but I am not telling nonsense.
Rangers didn’t make loans to players. Rangers made payments into a sub trust for the players benefit.
There was no mechanism for Rangers getting the money back so it was a payment. They also had no power to grant or deny a loan, that was up to the trustees of the EBT.
======================================
So you know this, then please tell us how the Rangers EBTS worked?
Am I right that contracts would only need to show the gross pay?
So if the players true gross pay was on the contracts logged with the SFA then the net pay and any tax vehicle used to get there is not a breach of rules?
That way any “side letter” would not be a breach of, or an additional contract, it would simply be detailing how the actual gross salary on the contract would be worth net to the player.
spanishcelt says:
September 29, 2012 at 13:59
Yes but is a LOAN payment?
davis58 says:
September 29, 2012 at 13:55
—————————————–
You don’t think your club defrauding millions in tax – wee tax case of about £3m, PAYE and VAT of about £14m, and currently appealed amount of about £24m is enough.
What about the investigation for fielding ineligible players for years, still not enough.
What about all the money you got from Ticketus and aren’t repaying, no. Or all the other debt being written off.
What about administration and pending liquidation, does that not work for you. Not nuclear enough.
What about the new club being rejected by the SPL and going into SFL3.
What about the vast bulk of your players walking away for nothing.
All real, none of it made up. None of it nuclear enough for you then.
Wow, just wow!
Lol, closing gambit from Stuart – “Bomber Brown is being paid £27.50 for appearing on the show. He has asked for £23 in cash and the other £4.50 to be paid into an offshore account in the British Virgin Islands.”
All in all, I felt that Tam and Stuart felt kinda sorry for Bomber and let him off the hook. Maybe that was the correct thing to do. As much as I detest his ideology, Bomber isn’t the target in all of this.
Davis58,
The reference to “nuclear events” leads me to conclude that perhaps you are just trolling after all. I deleted posts the other day which mocked you, so I would have expected some understanding on your part.
The evidence which are asking about has been in the public domain since RTC published it and subsequently when the Mark Daly documentary offered proof of the existence of the side-letters – not to minimise the importance of the Martin Bain – John McLelland email where Bain clearly alludes to the scam and advises the then Chairman that he will “shred the evidence”.
Of course no-one has decided guilt based on the evidence so in that you are correct, but it seems a bit of a debating construct to ask us not to talk about something we all know is there from material already in the public domain. To be fair, most people concerned with the welfare of Rangers are not talking denial right now, but mitigation.
By way of analogy, I have never been to Australia, so I have no way of proving conclusively that it exists. However I am pretty damn sure it’s there.
Agrajag says:
September 29, 2012 at 14:02
So you say ineligible players, however that is a bit presumptive, where they ineligible, we do not have a ruling yet.
Have you considered the scenario that Rangers may not have pursued an illegal EBT loan system?
davis58 says:
September 29, 2012 at 13:56
Rangers didn’t make loans to players. Rangers made payments into a sub trust for the players benefit.
There was no mechanism for Rangers getting the money back so it was a payment. They also had no power to grant or deny a loan, that was up to the trustees of the EBT.
======================================
So you know this, then please tell us how the Rangers EBTS worked?
========================================
Given that there are rules on how EBTs have to work there’s no need really. Just look them up and have a read.
Unfortunately you will find that Rangers’ didn’t, on a couple of grounds. They were not discretionary payments, Mark Daly and Alex Thompson have already shown that on TV. The “loans” paid out were not wholly at the discretion of the trustees. Again I think evidence of this was broadcast. Letters about loans being available if memory serves. In fact, did Mr Dodds not say that he was asked to take a payment as a loan through an EBT. Thing is, that makes the EBT fail, Rangers cannot negotiate that.
Hence Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs sending bills for huge sums of unpaid tax.
Oh and there’s the other £17m, which Rangers have agreed they didn’t pay and should have.
davis58 says:
September 29, 2012 at 14:00
0 0 Rate This
spanishcelt says:
September 29, 2012 at 13:59
Yes but is a LOAN payment?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you believe that then you also probably believe that Rangers/The Rangers is/was the most successful football club on the planet. Both beliefs would be nonsense. And you know it.
I heard John Brown’s performance on t’radio earlier. Of course much of what he said was a collection of the available platitudes in common usage amongst friends of Rangers – and I would expect nothing less. However I did think that he injected a dose of reality into the affair with his agreement that the SPL and SFA had bent over backwards to help Rangers and his admission of wrongdoing on the part of the club.
Most notably however was the ansence of any of the sort of rabble-rousing we have seen from the man who Brown might consider as his worst enemy, Charles Green.
With my expectations so low, J.B. scored a seven out of ten for me.
davis58 says:
September 29, 2012 at 14:08
Have you considered the scenario that Rangers may not have pursued an illegal EBT system?
=============================
They did though, HMRC have already ruled on it and sent the bill.
If the appeal is successful then things will change. As it stands Rangers have underpaid their tax by millions of pounds.
Actually I would find it hysterical if the appeal were to be upheld.
davis58 says:
September 29, 2012 at 14:00
Yes but is a LOAN payment?
…………………………………………………….
I am probably the original doubting Thomas and you come across as an intelligent guy so please dont lose any credibility you might have with suggesting that over a 12 year period over 80 employees and ex employees applied for and received tax saving, non repayable loans of tens of millions of pounds.
Now, when you consider that most of the people receiving these “loans” were actually not being paid their agreed salaries in the first place but instead of taking their guaranteed salary they opted to ask for a loan instead, then the only way any sane person would agree to that was IF the “loan” was also guaranteed and did not need to be repaid.
You know its the truth and no matter how its dressed up its a fact that players were paid their salary in the form of a non repayable “loan” which something like 5% tax was paid on, now if it was just a loan and not a “loan” why was any tax payable at all?
TSFM says:
September 29, 2012 at 14:06
The evidence which are asking about has been in the public domain since RTC published it and subsequently when the Mark Daly documentary offered proof of the existence of the side-letters – not to minimise the importance of the Martin Bain – John McLelland email where Bain clearly alludes to the scam and advises the then Chairman that he will “shred the evidence”.
==================================================================
OK, so you expect me to believe the words of an anonymous blogger, or Mark Daly, has anyone, other than them seen evidence of dual contracts or side letters, it makes no sense!
If there were dual contracts/Side letters then surely the appeal process would have been finished long before now.
spanishcelt says:
September 29, 2012 at 13:59
Am I right that contracts would only need to show the gross pay?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes it would with the caveat that the figure would be subject to the appropriate social tax and NI in force at the time.
I think you will find Spanish that under FIFA rules a registered player can only have 1 contract with a registered club that provides payment for the playing of professional football…what we have here is 2 or more that are providing payment for playing professional football….
spanishcelt says:
September 29, 2012 at 13:59
Am I right that contracts would only need to show the gross pay?
So if the players true gross pay was on the contracts logged with the SFA then the net pay and any tax vehicle used to get there is not a breach of rules?
That way any “side letter” would not be a breach of, or an additional contract, it would simply be detailing how the actual gross salary on the contract would be worth net to the player.
==============================
How would they have included the discretionary payments.
It’s easy enough to list a basic salary and any potential performance bonuses. For example if the player score 24 goals during the season he is entitled to £100k.
How does one do that for a bonus which is not performance based and is at the full discretion of the club.
How does one include it if the player is not guaranteed it. The trustees of the EBT could refuse the application.
It is impossible to include EBT payments in a contract.
Am I the only one who does not have a clue what BroganRogans post is about.
Apologies BRTH, normally I lap your stuff up.
Can someone translate for the thick people.
Sadly, after an exchange of emails with RTC, I have been able to establish the provenance of the mail I received earlier concerning our old friend Corsica.
An associate of his had emailed to tell me that Corsica passed away six weeks ago after suffering from cancer. Corsica had not told any of his friends that he was suffering from the illness, so his death came as a shock to those closest to him.
On behalf of TSFM, I would like to pay tribute to the intelligence, insight and wit that Corsica brought to the RTC blog and for his part in shaping the ethos of this one.
RIP Corsica, and our thoughts go to his family (somewhat belatedly) at this time.
Ah, that cat in the box thing again. Even if you had been to Australia, you have no way of knowing whether it’s there right now. 😉
Usually I buy a Scotsman on Saturdays, but the village shop had none today so I got a Herlad instead. There’s a TRFC piece in there, in which TRFC fans are described as “patient and understanding”. I nearly spat my coffee out.
Davis – mate, the whole methodology used by the old Rangers with regard to EBTs has been covered many times. Do a little back-reading.
As you have recently been reminded, HMRC found that RFC(IA) owed tax because of that methodology, and HMRC are not stupid. RFC(IA) are appealing that decision.
It’s nearly October, which is when the appeal tribunal is mooted to be revealed … so if RFC(IA) EBTs were above board, then you have nothing to fear. In fact, you’ll have ginormous gloating rights.
So don’t worry. If you truly believe RFC(IA) were in the right, then you’re on an absolute winner, eh?
spanishcelt says:
September 29, 2012 at 14:14
The problem here is the moral high horse. Yes what Rangers were doing was imoral, I do not contest that, but illegal we have to wait and see. However how do you reconcile this immorality with the fact that most celebrities, pop stars, football players do avoid paying tax through many imaginative schemes?
Drop the whataboutery, Davis. We’re not here to keep tabs on pop stars. 😉
Meanwhile, from the BBC: “Approval is “imminent” for permission to build a hotel and leisure complex near Celtic Park to coincide with the build up to the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014, according to BBC Scotland’s Jim Spence.
“The Celtic Triangle, as it’s called, will look splendid,” Spency says.”
Celtic Trangle? Sounds a bit, um … “geometric” for that side of Glasgow. 😉
By the way, I never, ever heard of “thrawn” being used to describe a “crooked” person. Not in my lifetime, and not as used by my granny either. It always just meant something along the lines of “obstinate” or “stubborn”, with an overtone of grumpiness.
davis58
I will try to answer your question about how the EBT business worked in some cases at least I will do my best.
Player A is approached about signing for Rangers. He may or may not have the opportunity to play for another team.
His agent establishes what is on offer by way of wages as is his duty.
After negotiations the result is that Player A Has a contract which states that he will be paid £20,000 per week. This is a gross figure from which Rangers deduct say 40% for NI and tax so what the player gets in his hand is £12,000 per week.
However, by way of a side letter which is signed “On behalf of the board of Rangers PLC” the player is assured that he will be paid a sum of money over and above the sum stated in his contract. Some of these sums will relate to games played, some will relate to winning appearances and other parts simply state that throughout the period where the player is employed, EBT Trustees will make payments to the player amounting to £Y pounds.
Technically, the player has to apply to receive these monies from the EBT– and the detailed mechanism as to how players made those applications and who made them on behalf of the players and when– will come to light in the FTT decision.
Rangers benefit by being able to pay players sums of money without deduction of tax which means that the players end up with more money in their pocket than if they had been paid a higher gross wage by another club.
Or to put it another way, given that Rangers consistently posted losses in the naughties, Rangers were able to employ and pay players who they would not have been able to afford without increasing the level of losses that they posted consistently.
They could not continue to lose money like that and survive financially. Further without the EBT style of payment, they would not have been able to sign some people at all— I believe that Jean Alain Boumsong was one such player who would not have come to Rangers without the enhanced financial package.
Boumsong’s sale was absolutely essential to Rangers being able to post a profit in the year to 2005– as stated in their accounts, and he received an additional £630,000 for the 18 games he played for the club before being sold for over £8M having purchased for free…. and remember this was the year when the bank debt was reduced from £73Million following the rights issue which raised £50M.
Even with the rights issue, even with the Boumsong sale, Rangers still had a mighty debt which they were under pressure to reduce. They could not reduce the debt and secure a certain quality of player by paying those same players through the traditional method.
Hope that helps.
Ok Angus,
Please enlighten me on how Rangers ran the EBT scheme, or suggest links, because I have never seen documented evidence of how the EBT scheme worked. Have you?
RIP Corsica. Sad news. He was a respected contributor.
Oh dear Mr Cosgrove……. BIG BIG letdown today re ‘bomber’ he was talking total dross and you let it go past without question? Were you in complete awe of him and his superstar status (snigger) your report card should say……Must do better I’m afraid 🙁 on the other hand, some intersting news trickling through from Phil MacG 😉
No bother Davis. Read BRTH’s post above yours. 🙂
doontheslope says:
September 29, 2012 at 14:04
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It did sound that way to me….as well as sounding a tad cautious on how they structured and discussed the issues with Bomber…
Brogan Rogan Trevino and Hogan says:
September 29, 2012 at 14:26
I believe that Jean Alain Boumsong was one such player who would not have come to Rangers without the enhanced financial package.
However you are perhaps forgetting the investigation by the FA and Police that found no wrong doing?
Corsica
One of the original big hitters over on RTC.
God bless him and his family at this sad time.
Rest in peace corsica
TSFM says:
September 29, 2012 at 14:19
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Indeed…sometimes its easy to forget that the posts are from real people..
Sad news.
Lord Wobbly
If you believe that then you also probably believe that Rangers/The Rangers is/was the most successful football club on the planet. Both beliefs would be nonsense. And you know it.
Yes of course I believe that as you do you club, on that we can never agree, but what I do not accept is sanctimonious crap about tax avoidance! When all our players, are doing it.
davis58 says:
September 29, 2012 at 14:21(Edit)
The problem here is the moral high horse. Yes what Rangers were doing was imoral, I do not contest that, but illegal we have to wait and see. However how do you reconcile this immorality with the fact that most celebrities, pop stars, football players do avoid paying tax through many imaginative schemes?
______________________________________________________________
Davis58
Don’t want to be ganging up on you, but first off we are not monitoring the tax avoidance/evasion habits of the rich and famous. Secondly, whataboutery is no defence to what appears to have taken place in Rangers’ name, and thirdly (and less importantly), my personal view of people who are involved in ANY kind of tax scam is that their behaviour is reprehensible – whether they are lawful or not.
However you do allude to the acquisitive nature of tax evasion/avoidance. In the context of football, you will find that the consensus here is that what was being acquired was unfair advantage – used in turn to acquire even greater wealth.
If other Scottish football clubs have been implicated in a scam on this level, then that would definitely be of interest to this blog. However the tax affairs of businessmen and artists, whilst questionable to people of principle, are nothing to do with us, unless you are suggesting that wrongdoing on the part of a Scottish football team should not be condemned at all unless Mick Jagger is first relieved of his wealth accumulated through tax-dodgery?
angus1983 says:
September 29, 2012 at 14:23
Meanwhile, from the BBC: “Approval is “imminent” for permission to build a hotel and leisure complex near Celtic Park to coincide with the build up to the Commonwealth Games in Glasgow in 2014, according to BBC Scotland’s Jim Spence.
“The Celtic Triangle, as it’s called, will look splendid,” Spency says.”
Celtic Trangle? Sounds a bit, um … “geometric” for that side of Glasgow.
I listened closely to that announcement hoping to hear sniggering allusion to a hover-pitch…
Sorry to hear of Corsica’s passing and thoughts to his family.
Angus
I checked the meaning against a number of online sources many of which gave interesting examples with some saying that it was originally a scots word, other saying an Ulster word and more saying a northern English word.
Davis
Sorry but the nature, scope and basis of any Police investigation is very different from the tests and standards applied by HMRC concerning a revenue issue. Two different tests.
So Corsica has gone to that great hot-tub in the sky. As promised, Corsica baby, my next Balvenie will be raised in your honour. Slange.
Davis58 14:16pm
Criminal investigations.
TSFM
However you do allude to the acquisitive nature of tax evasion/avoidance. In the context of football, you will find that the consensus here is that what was being acquired was unfair advantage – used in turn to acquire even greater wealth.
Yes I was alluding to the behavior of players who quite clearly invest their hard earned money in movie ventures or other high risk ventures, especially when they know they are not. My question is does the CFO of a PLC or even a limited company have a duty to reduce the tax liabilities of his company?
Requiescat in pace Corsica.
Oy my goodness, never thought I’d see the day Admiral Thrawn from the Star Wars books would be referenced on here. Here was me thinking I was the only person who’d ever read them! lol 😀
Great post as usual from BRTH, cuts through the MSM crap so eloquently. If a mere internet bampot can provide this level of detail and analysis, why not the Scots MSM? (Of course we known why!)
Apparently Bomber Brown actually came across as relatively sensible on OTB earlier today. Could he be the only one that gets it? If so then the lunatics truly have taken over the asylum!
davis58 says:
September 29, 2012 at 14:37
0 0 Rate This
Lord Wobbly
If you believe that then you also probably believe that Rangers/
The Rangers is/was the most successful football club on the
planet. Both beliefs would be nonsense. And you know it.
Yes of course I believe that as you do you club, on that we can
never agree, but what I do not accept is sanctimonious crap
about tax avoidance! When all our players, are doing it.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is not about players avoiding tax though. This is about Rangers evading tax. Do you see the difference?
And on Rangers being the most successful club? You believe they are. I know they’re not. Again, do you see the difference?
TSFM,
Thank you for informing us of Corsica’s passing. He always came across as a very knowledgeable, insightfull man with a desire to see justice done. From our point of view, here, it is particularly sad that he didn’t live to see the final chapter and the justice he sought. My condolences to all his family and friends.
Lord Wobbly says:
September 29, 2012 at 14:48
And on Rangers being the most successful club? You believe they are. I know they’re not. Again, do you see the difference?
Yes I do, we will never come to agree on this subject.
My sincere condolences to the family of our dear departed friend corsica.
It’s always hard to make judgments about someone you only know through postings on a blog but corsica struck me as a classy gent.
In his memory, we will continue this fight for truth and justice. RIP.