Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside. - Page 401 - Football related - Discussion of non TA football - Tartan Army Message Board Jump to content

Rangers are Rocking; Scottys Financial insight inside.


Speirs  

64 members have voted

  1. 1. Was Speirs talking the truth or lying

    • Yes
      54
    • No
      10

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, ironbrew said:

What other clubs went into admin after winning trophies while clearly overspending? Hearts and Gretna (if you include runners up medals, can`t remember their exact  league success) would be obvious ones if trophies are to be struck off records but there may be more.

They perhaps overspent but it wasn't illegal money they used. Gretna does stick in my throat though as a Saints fan when they bought their way into the top flight at our expense on the final day of the season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scotty CTA said:

It's not illegal to be in debt.

It is however illegal to evade paying tax that is due.

There's a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion in terms of legality. 

 

Saying a scheme should have and is subject to tax is not the same as saying its illegal. Effectively the courts have ruled by saying the money should have been and must be repaid. There has been no ruling as far as im aware and I stand corrected if wrong to say anybody has acted illegally.

So with reference to the original statement there is no real term difference to using EBTs than to running up huge debts. Both are operating outside the clubs means.

For example if Rangers didnt go bust and this tax ruling happened today then Rangers would just have to pay the money back. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The EBT 'loans' were designed to never 'realistically' be repaid (so not loans at all).

It has been found out to be a tax evasion scam to the detriment of not only Scottish football, but British society.

People should be in jail for the amounts that should have gone to education, health, police/fire, national defence, etc.

Rangers (and their masonic puppet masters) stole from everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

There's a difference between tax avoidance and tax evasion in terms of legality. 

 

Saying a scheme should have and is subject to tax is not the same as saying its illegal. Effectively the courts have ruled by saying the money should have been and must be repaid. There has been no ruling as far as im aware and I stand corrected if wrong to say anybody has acted illegally.

So with reference to the original statement there is no real term difference to using EBTs than to running up huge debts. Both are operating outside the clubs means.

For example if Rangers didnt go bust and this tax ruling happened today then Rangers would just have to pay the money back. 

Scotty means "unlawful" rather than illegal. 

Your assertion that there is no difference between an unlawful tax avoidance scheme and having debt, is utterly bizarre. 

It's like saying that having a mortgage is just the same as lying to HMRC to avoid paying tax for 8 years, then using that to buy your house. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Reevesy said:

They also won cup finals against clubs other than Celtic. Dundee United in the league cup for one.

Good point, including beating my team in the league cup final with 9 men FFS.

Does that now mean St Mirren won the league cup twice in 3 years B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Scotty CTA said:

The EBT 'loans' were designed to never 'realistically' be repaid (so not loans at all).

It has been found out to be a tax evasion scam to the detriment of not only Scottish football, but British society.

People should be in jail for the amounts that should have gone to education, health, police/fire, national defence, etc.

Rangers (and their masonic puppet masters) stole from everyone.

For the bit in bold, you are completely wrong :ok: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Parklife said:

Scotty means "unlawful" rather than illegal. 

Your assertion that there is no difference between an unlawful tax avoidance scheme and having debt, is utterly bizarre. 

It's like saying that having a mortgage is just the same as lying to HMRC to avoid paying tax for 8 years, then using that to buy your house. 

Did Rangers actually lie to HMRC though?  Rangers used the scheme 2001-2008. My understanding is that the law was changed in 2010 to make clear that EBTs were taxable as there were loopholes being exploited and it gave HMRC the power to go back and claim historical amounts that would have been due. At this point HMRC came knocking asking for the money, some clubs paid what was asked (Celtic, Arsenal etc. I think Arsenal settled and paid £3m when HMRC were chasing £300m+). I think we tried to settle for £11m which is what the tax would have been but HMRC refused and wanted that plus the fines that they added. Rangers then appealed this and won, which led to the series of appeals with the first 3 siding with Rangers then last last 2 siding with HMRC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They certainly lied to the football authorities by not declaring the side letters regarding the EBTs; the way rangers used these now having been declared unlawful. The only logical outcome is all trophies won by the old club be struck from the records.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Parklife said:

Scotty means "unlawful" rather than illegal. 

Your assertion that there is no difference between an unlawful tax avoidance scheme and having debt, is utterly bizarre. 

It's like saying that having a mortgage is just the same as lying to HMRC to avoid paying tax for 8 years, then using that to buy your house. 

Unlawful is different from illegal as you have pointed out. I have no strong opinion on the case. I just think that it weakens peoples arguments when they use incorrect terms.  

Rangers used a scheme that meant they could sign players they otherwise couldnt afford. I am saying that in real terms this is no different from clubs using money they dont have to sign players they cant afford. 

If Rangers had the money to pay back the EBTs after the authorities decided that tax should have been paid on it then they would have done so. As other clubs have done who used the same scheme.

The problem here is that Rangers didnt have the money and subsequently went into admin and went bust. The authorities have already punished them for that. (Regardless of the severity of the punishment)

There is no basis to strip Rangers of titles in law. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Diamond Scot said:

Unlawful is different from illegal as you have pointed out. I have no strong opinion on the case. I just think that it weakens peoples arguments when they use incorrect terms.  

Rangers used a scheme that meant they could sign players they otherwise couldnt afford. I am saying that in real terms this is no different from clubs using money they dont have to sign players they cant afford. 

If Rangers had the money to pay back the EBTs after the authorities decided that tax should have been paid on it then they would have done so. As other clubs have done who used the same scheme.

The problem here is that Rangers didnt have the money and subsequently went into admin and went bust. The authorities have already punished them for that. (Regardless of the severity of the punishment)

There is no basis to strip Rangers of titles in law. 

So wrong on every count

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, DaveyDenoon said:

So wrong on every count

Feel free to point out how. 

In particular please point out where the basis for stripping titles in law is. Based on facts, process and law. Not on opinion.

Any route that the authorities could have went down has been closed off. Ie they didnt rule on non disclosure of the scheme in a way that opened the door to the stripping of titles. No court has made a judgement about illegal behaviour.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There doesn't have to be legal precedent here. Football has its own code of conduct and clubs/individuals are often punished in accordance with it for matters that would never reach a court of law. The authorities could easily strip titles on the charge of bringing the game into disrepute imo. 

Personally I don't really care if they strip titles or not, although it would be quite funny. However Rangers sporting advantage during the period should be noted and recorded for all to see in some way, thereby rendering them tainted to most of us although probably never to Rangers fans. If we are ever to get any closure on this matter this has to happen.

Edited by slasher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Diamond Scot said:

Unlawful is different from illegal as you have pointed out. I have no strong opinion on the case. I just think that it weakens peoples arguments when they use incorrect terms.  

Rangers used a scheme that meant they could sign players they otherwise couldnt afford. I am saying that in real terms this is no different from clubs using money they dont have to sign players they cant afford. 

If Rangers had the money to pay back the EBTs after the authorities decided that tax should have been paid on it then they would have done so. As other clubs have done who used the same scheme.

The problem here is that Rangers didnt have the money and subsequently went into admin and went bust. The authorities have already punished them for that. (Regardless of the severity of the punishment)

There is no basis to strip Rangers of titles in law. 

You're totally ignoring the unlawful sporting advantage Rangers gained. Of course there's a basis to strip titles. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Parklife said:

You're totally ignoring the unlawful sporting advantage Rangers gained. Of course there's a basis to strip titles. 

Im not ignoring it. For what its worth I think its clearly wrong what has happened. I was just pointing out that there is no basis in law. The sporting advantage thing has already been ruled on by the authorities. Thats all I am saying here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Diamond Scot said:

Im not ignoring it. For what its worth I think its clearly wrong what has happened. I was just pointing out that there is no basis in law. The sporting advantage thing has already been ruled on by the authorities. Thats all I am saying here.

You're talking complete dovers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you forgetting the Dirty Cheating Bastards Act of 1842?

Seriously what do you expect. Rangers are the case law on this. You are the precedent.

As for the SFA and SPL they can make it up as they go as they have proven over and over. But they will crawl up Rangers arse as usual. They could strip old RFC of the titles and who is going to sue them? New RFC have no right to sue them. This is where the blah blah same club shit meets reality. BDO will not sue on behalf of old RFC, no money in it. So it would be so easy for the SFA to do this (new RFC would fume on the sidelines) and a real statement of 'Independence' but watch them make excuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, and I'm a Tim, I don't see the merits of stripping. Where do you stop? Surely the 'doping' had the potential to also effect the relegation of teams too?

They'll remain tainted titles for the corpse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, macy37 said:

Personally, and I'm a Tim, I don't see the merits of stripping. Where do you stop? Surely the 'doping' had the potential to also effect the relegation of teams too?

They'll remain tainted titles for the corpse.

Most would be fine with the EBT years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, macy37 said:

Personally, and I'm a Tim, I don't see the merits of stripping. Where do you stop? Surely the 'doping' had the potential to also effect the relegation of teams too?

They'll remain tainted titles for the corpse.

Yep, same as me. You start to get into a whole load of "What if" scenarios which can never have a factual outcome. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Dalgety Bay TA said:

Yep, same as me. You start to get into a whole load of "What if" scenarios which can never have a factual outcome. 

Sometimes a statement has to be made.

We all know it actually means nothing to the teams that were cheated against. The teams that lost cup finals, or missed out in European spots, or lost when they should have won in random Saturdays.

Those memories have been stolen.

And for that reason I'd like to see them voided.

Old Co, as we are reminded doesn't exist anymore so nobody can complain if a non existand club gets its titles and cups stripped.

I have a feeling this one will have legs, much the same way the SFA tried to gerrymander newco into the top tier of the SPFL. It was the other clubs that ensured newco were lucky enough to start at the bottom tier.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...