RANGERRAB 3,306 Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 yesterday's announcement was that the SPL were to investigate us for dual contracts/EBT's. One arguement THEY make is that we had players we couldn't afford and won titles as a result of this which certain cretins now want removed. But rewind 10 years or so and recall Celtic's financial position too. It wasn't great was it ? remember their Chief Executive called Ian McLEOD? he was a specialist who ran companies with large overdrafts and basically managed that debt. He worked also at troubled companies such as Boots & Halfords as I recall. He, of course, left them b4 suville as the daily rebel at the time published a photo of him playing in a works 5 a side in a Rangers strip a few years b4. Coincidental or what? And do I recall when O'Neil left their debts were around 30million ? this was of course substanially reduced when wee Chesney got them into the CL Knockout stages twice and he got hee-haw to spend So you see when they accuse us of overspending theirs at that time was similar. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Their debts and the level of them are a very different argument to the use of EBT's and dual contracts. They were overspending, but they managed their debt and never went into liquidation, or even administration. We were overspending, and we did. And we may have been using dual contracts which is against SPL rules. Had we been overspending the same way as they did but within the bounds of the rules of the association then it would be an interesting argument because they would argue we won titles with money we didnt have and we could just as easily argue that the debt was being suitably managed given our wealthy benefactor. Alas, the outcome of EBT's and dual contracts makes it an apples for oranges argument. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 they had ebts that were not declared. then theirs image rights. film companies etc. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 they had ebts that were not declared. then theirs image rights. film companies etc. Fair point, but unless they go into administration or have a witch hunt conducted against them by the media, then the SFA / SPL won't have justification or motivation to investigate these indiscretions. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 they had ebts that were not declared. then theirs image rights. film companies etc. They, apparently, had ONE EBT for Juninho. Image rights and film companies are legal, as of right now anyway - HMRC are making moves to make them illegal though, from what I have read. Also, the OP makes NO mention of EBT's, but talks only of debts. very different arguments as I intimated in my original response. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
UCF2008 0 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 While I think that the OP may have a point in terms of their spending not all being above board - they did after all manage to match and even better our spending on transfers and wages during many of our seasons of supposedly doing so excessively - my point remains that they won't be taken to task over it without significant evidence or otherwise reason for the authorities to investigate. Like Craig says, the EBT one is insignificant. It was inherited from his Middlesborough contract apparently. Other forms of tax avoidance / evasion could yet come back to bite them in the arse if it boils down to undisclosed payments as in our case to answer to the SPL. Debt doesn't count though. Even Dundee were £23m in debt when they went into admin first time round, purely through buying players they couldn't afford and thus giving themselves an 'unfair sporting advantage'. Similar accusations could be made against Motherwell. Both got off scot free. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RANGERRAB 3,306 Posted June 20, 2012 Author Share Posted June 20, 2012 My main point isn't about EBT's. It's about the debt they had. It's said we cheated by having debt. My point is they had debt too. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
biggordy 0 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 "Tax Exile" Dermot Desmond paid Robbie Keane's wages did he not? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,292 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 "Tax Exile" Dermot Desmond paid Robbie Keane's wages did he not? Was that registered with the SFA/SPL? Can we have e.g. a sheikh paying our players then? On a sidenote, Celtic is run by two companies, and unless I am mistaken, one is 20m+ in debt. Debt that was to be called in in the not too distant future, IIRC. Is that the reason why the utterly over-value their price assets? (Of course, it is beyond belief that there are various teams down south willing to pay these prices ... ) 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedell 5,356 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 "Tax Exile" Dermot Desmond paid Robbie Keane's wages did he not? Don't think that's ever been proven. However if it is true, then perhaps Keane had a separate contract with one of Desmond's companies to do PR work that was unrelated to his Celtic contract? I doubt it's something that could be proven very easily that there were dual contracts in place. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.