der Berliner

BTW, there are things that are of interest to me, and there are things which are not. This article belongs to the latter. At least (!) as long as the press will target TLB and kin like he does with us and ours.

Snatched from FF, source to be added as soon as I find it ... (Do note the negative headline ahead of a rather positive article!)

I actually e-mailed the RST for questioning the SPL's choice of lawyers a couple of days ago. Not that the SPL will change anything on that, but we should keep a wary look at this. Matter of fact, I'd like to inform UEFA about the current going on's anyway. There is so much negativity oozing out of the media and the noises from the SFA and SPL are also pretty negative, usually only towards us, so that impartiality can't IMHO not be guaranteed.

What remains is not only that lawyers connected to Celtic are called in by an SPL board and chief with distinct connections to that club, or lenient behaviour to that club. For months e.g. Doublestandards has shown that the SPL and its chief show utter neglect to unlawful (mind you!) behaviour by thousands of Celtic supporters, while intently listening to the chatter of a handful of Rangers people wherever we go. And charge some persons for essentially nothing. If someone would actually start collecting all the evidence, and not just the slaggish behaviour by the authorities, but also the negativity oozing out of the media, people would wonder whether this is a full-blooded inquisition taking place in the 21st century. Anyone talking about us being paranoid about this would need their head examined.

"Reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns - there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns - that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns - the ones we don't know we don't know."

Well, driving home this evening I was actually thinking whether fame would get someone like Kennedy motivated too. I mean, he's got it all by now, but imagining that he could come up as the saviour of this old club in its 140th year of existence and thus immortalize him not only in our minds but also in the record books. Might somesuch not appeal to a single well-off businessman?

Can we actually ask who placed this Celtic-connected lawyers company in this? If anything, it should have been a compnay totally unconnected to the Scottish game and the case being decided not by people from other Scottish clubs, no matter whether this is actually a "normally chosen" board.

An FFer suggested this ... ... if that is possible, well ...

I would like to see their three-company background being investigated a bit further.

Now hold your breakfast ... HMcL ... or ... Impartiality personified, it seems.

... maybe so. The only question that remains in this case though is the colour of the carpet chosen.

... you mean we are being targetted while the SPL kindly overlooks that Kilmarnock and Hearts are running at serious debts (for their size) without anything being said about it, The Pars having to cut players' wages because an outstanding payment from Rangers to the tune of 85k? The SPL teams are in a dire shyte state and the more they push it, the nearer their own end cometh. A blind man on a galloping horse would see that, but ...

I'm sorry, but I cannot see an independent board including people from some, but not all SPL clubs, especially, if they only act against one club and on such an important issue, an issue that may soon find their own clubs under suspicion too.

Sometimes you do wonder whether editors actually read what their reporters put in front of them. There is no reason to suggest that Kennedy is a front-runner, since we know next to no facts to his or the other people's bids. So no-one but the press has a go at making someone a front-runner. Likewise, you cannot claim that something is "to the contrary" of an assumption based on no facts at all. And while we are at it, you do wonder (no, actually you do not) why there is constant need to tell us that Kennedy is a "Hibs fan" and only a "fall-back" action. Maybe I misread his initial statement, but I seem to remember that he's a Edinburgh lad who grew up a stone-throw away from Tynecastle and all his school-fellows were Jambos, so he decided to become a Hibee and hence was done a few times by his fellow pupils. IF he was a Hibee now, wouldn't you expect that he would help THEM instead of US, since they are looking rank rotten these past few years? It's like every article about Neil McCann would say: The Celtic-fan Neil McCann, who happened to play for Rangers bla bla ... Kindly ignoring that boyhood heroes are sometimes just that, BOYhood heroes?! Heck, I was a fan of ABBA once ...

And if that is actually done, i.e. a Celtic member on board, we (whether fans or club) should at long last go to a higher authority and let them start to having a look into SPL/SFA-affairs.

Well, I collected a few funny lines over the years (mostly from FF). No need for an ex-Dundee director: A blind man on a galloping horse would have seen that! The "8-7 to Celtic" guy sounded like a right banana-skin smoker. I seriously would hope not as N'Gog is utter sh1te or has been anytime I've seen him and couldn't finish his dinner. (Walter Smith being at Anfield) My oh my, he's about as popular at the Glue Camp as a rap band at a KKK rally. (On the discredited journalist) Darrell King's contributions to Clyde leave a bad taste in the mouth, but your average Clyde listener doesn't need any encouragement to be a paranoid wreck. I'd rather he stayed to be honest. Not once in his career has he had a blinder against us. He holds onto the ball too long and has an end product like a sandwich maker with Parkinsons. (About Traitor O'Gheady's transfer to Russia)

Methinks a bit too much is made about his initial comments with regard of him being a "fall-back" option. I would assume that by now he has a clearer picture of it all and ... obviously ... his wife will make his life hell on Earth of he backs down too much

That's the problem with most of the stuff we get these days. Nigh every article written on a subject relating to us needs to bang in the HMRC bill that looms over our heads and all the rest of the dire stuff, whether it relates to the actual story or not. One does need a cool head to see this through.

Taken from FF, a little discussion by an FFer with an unaffiliated tax expert: Perhaps not too much new stuff in here, but I thought I'd post details of a conversation I've had via LinkedIn with a Senior Tax Partner at a leading legal firm. He doesn't seem to sway in favour of Rangers or otherwise, so I found it quite interesting to hear from a neutral perspective. +++ It started from a comment from him hence the initial blog-like post. If anyone sees this discussion on LinkedIn, I'd appreciate anonymity for the expert at all costs. ------ EBT = Evil Bad Taxpayer ?? Aggressive tax â??planningâ? or â??avoidanceâ? is headline news right now. The line between tax evasion â?? illegally not paying the tax due - and tax avoidance â?? quite legitimately interpreting the law to reach an appropriate conclusion - is increasingly blurred. The use of employee benefit trusts is part of that debate and some of the comment on this has been .... well frankly, a load of rubbish. One thing Iâ??ve heard on several occasions is that those involved, for example Rangers FC, "are guilty of tax evasionâ? â?? no, theyâ??re not. What Rangers and many other taxpayers did was tax planning = arranging your affairs in a way that allows you to pay the least possible tax within the confines of the law. Last time I checked, that precedent established by historic case law still applied. Rangers paid some of their players and senior employees in a way which meant their earnings werenâ??t subject to UK tax and they did this in a way that at the time was relatively common and not viewed with particular disdain. The Government has fought a â??hearts and mindsâ? campaign over the last 10 years to try to convince us that there is no difference between evasion and avoidance and everyone should pay the full amount of tax possible. Somewhere on that road they decided that they didnâ??t like EBTs. Hundreds if not thousands of taxpayers want to see the outcome of the recent Tribunal as there are millions of pounds of tax at stake. However that may not be the end of the story. The Tax Tribunal is the first level at which a contentious tax point is debated. Whoever loses has the right to appeal to a higher level, although there is the question of whether Rangers can afford to do this given the legal costs involved. There are further rights of appeal which eventually end at our Supreme Court, and also the European Court of Justice. In the meantime in 2011 HMRC brought in targeted rules to stop the â??offensiveâ? use of EBTs. But clearing up the historic position could take years. --- *****, Excellent article. However, my understanding of the situation at Rangers is that EBT's were used to pay salaries of staff rather than additional payments/bonuses. This is what HMRC is disputing and are classing as potential tax evasion? The case itself isn't as much of a landmark case as people think due to the way EBT's were used by Rangers, not the use of them in general. There are a few examples of companies using them to pay additional bonuses (which is slightly more acceptable to HMRC), and these have been settled out of court already (see Vodafone, Arsenal). Correct me if I'm wrong as I may be way off (and hope that I am), and you are the tax expert!! ---- Rory: Thanks, glad you enjoyed it. Businesses have used EBTs in many different ways and the underlying substance has varied with some using profits earned over many years to fund the EBT and others using exceptional profits. You mention whether it is salaries, bonuses or other and my view on this is that it shouldn't actually matter. In the view of HMRC, any remuneration for employees should be subject to income tax and it is noticeable that they chose to name their anti-avoidance rules aimed at EBTs and similar as "disguised remuneration". So they contend that once funds have left a company and gone "offshore", if the money finds its way back to an employee or director, for example by way of a long-term loan, then they should be taxed as income. A counter-argument is that it is not remuneration paid by the company and the trustees administering the EBT can at their discretion decide where the money goes. This is why the documentation surrounding the EBT is so important - and there have been suggestions that the Rangers documentation isn't helpful (am guessing here but maybe there is something in writing - as part of player signing negotiations ? - which says that overseas players will be paid with no UK tax ??) which is maybe why HMRC have litigated, viewing it as a weaker case. ---- Thanks for your response *****. My reply was based purely on my interpretation of the ongoing situation with Rangers/HMRC, so is most likely wholly incorrect! Your comment regarding documentation surrounding the EBT seems particularly pertinent, as there has been talk of "unofficial" letters given to players promising payment through EBT's. I'm guessing that the unofficial nature of these (no letterheads, separate from contracts) forms much of Rangers' argument - these were letters of intent and not contractually binding. Regardless, it will be an interesting few weeks ahead for sure - and not just for Rangers Football Club. ---- Thanks Rory, your interpretation is pretty good actually. I could write pages on the documentation issue but your comment is spot on - if HMRC can present tangible evidence that the funds going into the EBT were always intended to find their way to players and staff, I struggle to see how Rangers can win unless the court ignores the substance and upholds some technical argument regarding the relevant tax law. Most tax case decisions these days tend to find in favour of the substance of what happened rather than its legal form. In the eyes of HMRC, any documentation is fair game whether a letter, internal memo, email or even a handwritten note, and so the existence of anything which points towards "disguised salary" will not help their case.

Anyone can shed any light how "illegal" any of these Whyte deals listed above actually were. Or rather, how they can be deemed illegal under British / Scottish law.

Some naughty statement by the BBC's very own sports reporter Matt Slater, for after a rather sensible report on some administrations in British football, he's leaving a lingering comment about the Rangers support to end the article.

The Emir of Qatar ... maybe?

The day when we won the title at the Scumhut ... was that a home - fans only occasion? (The Hugh Dallas game.) Of course, if they postpone it, the scum and attached press will sure make us look like the bad boys who cannot behave.

There is, though, the small matter of TV commitments ...

I seem to remember that after the last round of talks in January, the "deadline" for a decision was said to be early April.