And so it begins...EBTs

[Blue Moon 1,113]

Allan Rennie now saying this was the Div 1 deal. It lets us see how they are thinking on this.

[Guest Dutchy]

I still would like to see the documents that are going to be used to blackmail us into hanging ourselves.

[Blue Moon 1,113]

Good comment from John DC Gow "I wonder if Green knew this story was coming out hence getting out of the country and bizarre comments about safe houses."

[metlika 0]

One of the Rangers Directors took the evidence to the SFA IIRC. I have been dreading this but surely to God this is the last of it. There was reference to side letters which they view as constituting dual contracts. There has been talk of playing unregistered players. That's all I can remember. None of this detail has been on twitter. I suppose we will find out some of the detail tomorrow.

 

More from Twitter DR. Saying it reads like an all party agreement. To be truthful I have been expecting that we don't really have a case in this.

 

Don't tell me its that old guy, whats his name again? Anybody help?

 

Hugh Adam.

[RANGERRAB 3,258]

Remember an EBT is technically a loan which has to be paid back at a distant date (in reality it never is paid back). It's not an additional contract as such but as I said a loan from the people administering the EBT scheme i.e. the trustees.

[Mountain Bear 0]

I'd love to know how they arrived at the number of 5 titles and 4 cups. Does that cover every season that ANY of the EBT players were still with Rangers? It feels like every aspect of every instance of wrongdoing has been treated in isolation, so that the authorities can maximise the impact on us.

 

If we dig our heels in on anything, for me this would be it. I don't give a damn about player registration bans by comparison. I hope Green gets that message.

[der Berliner 3,245]

As long as we do not have membership in the SFA, we're a sitting duck. IMHO, the DR et al using this to keep the hysteria levels up ere the season begins and suddenly they only have the SPL direness to report upon.

 

What needs to be done by the club is that each evidence provided and argued about has to be legally sound. If not we should challenge it. EBTs were not per se illegal and if they find some side letters they shall provide them and proof that this was fulfilling the case of double-contracts.

 

Should they succeed with this, we should do our utmost to check out other EBT schemes (or attempted EBT schemes) and image right deals and whatnot. Not one rule for us and another for the rest.

[der Berliner 3,245]

And while we are at it, if we lose the titles, we should make sure that none are award to the second paced teams or runner's up either. Sporting integrity demands winners, not second winners. E.g. Dunfermline Athletic.

[der Berliner 3,245]

A couple of points snatched from FF

 

What Rule Did We Break By Using EBT's ?

The most crucial fact in the EBTs is that they were discretionary payments.

 

As I understand it they were paid out only when the recipient applied for a payment.

 

To be legal they had to be administered by a Trust who were independent of RFC ( which they were).

 

As a result of this RFC had no control over who was paid what or when.

 

For Rangers to have known would have been making the scheme illegal.

 

The fact of how much was paid into the trust was disclosed annually in RFC accounts but they could not itemise as this would have broken the law.

 

The SFL are in effect saying RFC should have broken the Law to satisfy their rules which as we have already shown are not compatible with the law.

 

That is how it stands as I see it.

 

There is indeed a prima facia case to answer but when answered I suspect the circumstances are fully known the SPL will have some difficulty in finding against the club.

 

Sadly I doubt very much that will stop them doing exactly that though.

 

Replied with ...

 

If they were "secondary payments", which has not been established, as any monies disbursed were 'loans', then the very nature of EBTs precluded the possibility of advising the authorities of the amounts involved, at registration, along with regular salary. For the EBT to work as a tax minimisation vehicle, the contributions had to be, and to be seen to be, discretionary, ad hoc, and non- contractual, with contributions made, presumably, irregularly, from time to time.

 

"D1.13 A Club must, as a condition of Registration and for a Player to be eligible to Play in Official Matches, deliver the executed originals of all [Contracts of Service and amendments and/or extensions to Contracts of Service and all other agreements providing for payment, other than for reimbursement of expenses actually incurred, between that Club and Player,to the Secretary, within fourteen days of such Contract of Service or other agreement being entered into, amended and/or, as the case may be, extended.

 

If the EBT scheme is accepted, formally, de iure, as as mechanism for non contractual bonuses, media appearances, image rights, or whatever for the players, then it is hard to see how the Rule has been breached.

(Obviously, an EBT is not a 'second contract).

 

Whether, de facto, an EBT was, in some way, contractual, eg by way of back letter, side letter, or letter of comfort, confirming (guaranteeing) the nature of the contribution, ie its amount, and presumably, its timing, is a moot point, on which 3 eminent judges have deliberated for some length, with, as yet, no consensus, or decision. Any issue of secondary payment must surely have to be based on their considerations.

The authorities, however, seem to be hell bent on convening a hearing on the issue, prior to the findings of their eminences at the FTT. This worries me, as, if the SPL case is successfully contested, then it may re surface after the FTT results, if these go against MIH/Rangers. I do not think that the authorities will worry about double jeopardy. They seem to think that they have carte blanche. And, Chazza, it appears would accept anything. (He really has to go).

 

The EBTs were EMPLOYEE BENEFIT Trusts, an important point, particularly as the Rules over double contracts and secondary payments seem to be in place to protect the interests of the players. Let us ask:

Who benefited from the EBTs? The players (and other employees)

Are players making complaint about the EBTs/ their administration? No.

Is the SPFA (Union) making representations about EBTs? No.

Who, then, is so concerned about what might be a technical infraction of a Rule, that they advocate a totally disproportionate punishment if such is found to be the case?

 

The RFFF should get the QC on this and pronto. I can envisage that this will be a case of "guilty unless unproven" rather than the other way round. The witch hunt will start in earnest soon, rest assured.

[Guest carter001]

Out of curiosity and hypothetically.

 

EBT's are loans from and independently administered trust, funded by Rangers. Does this mean rangers can get, or are owed them money back? If so, if we had a rangers minded person with enough cash, could they repay the money to the trust on behalf of the recipients? As the trust is no longer required, would said money be returned to rangers? If so, rich rangers minded guy could then invoice rangers for the full amount, as a fee?

 

completely hypothetical but, would it be as simple as that?