simplythebest 0 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 This was posted by TannochsideBear on RM. The current agenda of kicking the Rangers sees an SPL investigation into alleged EBT payments to our players that were not part of their contracts that were registered with the SFA. From the leaked Regan documents, it appears that not only are the SFA not remaining impartial as they are supposed to be the appeals body if we are found guilty by the SPL, but they are actively negotiating with RFC over the punishments, well in advance of any guilt being proven or appeals being heard. Now not only is this prejudicial, it is corrupt and shows again that there is a definate anti-Rangers agenda from this man Regan, which has been much discussed since his arrival and everything he does only seems to reinforce it. Anyway, the point of this thread wasnt really Regan, but our very own former owner David Murray. He was in complete control of our club during the decade that is in question by the SPL at the moment. If there was any wrongdoing it will have been by him. Time and time again in the last year we have heard from Murray that he did nothing wrong, he was always doing what was best for Rangers. Why, now in our hour of need and against his very legacy, is there only silence from Murray? Usually when you have an attack on Murray in the media he quickly comes out on the offensive. Why not this time. My mistrust of Murray over the years has grown and grown, however even I am finding it difficult to contemplate that he would do something so easily found out and transparant as make non-contract payments to players knowing full well that is not allowed in football rules. I fully believe he will have done everything right legally from a tax perspective and that the EBT's will be deemed legal by the tax courts, much as I have always argued that the big tax case will be won by the club as I cannot believe something so important and fairly straight-forward to administer would have been allowed to go wrong. However being proven correct by the tax courts is not the same thing as doing them right in football law. Was Murray so arrogant that he believed the SPL/SFA would never challenge him on this and knew it to be wrong? Murray has to come out NOW and tell us his position regarding the EBT's. It is his already damaged legacy at stake here. It wont just be a renaming of the training ground that he will be remembered for. If our club is stripped of titles because of blatant flouting of the football rules made on his watch, he will be solely to blame and his name will be forever remembered as a cheat and a liar. Even his most loyal of fans will have give up on him. He will be the most hated figure in Rangers history, and I am sure that was not the legacy he had in mind. http://forum.rangersmedia.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=232095 It's certainly a question, while we know David Murray does not care a jot about Rangers he does care about his ego, those titles were one big ego trip for him. Sadly his silence leads me to think that the case for them being stripped is stronger than we may believe. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian1964 10,429 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 As for reports Rangers used double contracts to conceal payments to players – the stories were based on information supplied by former Ibrox director Hugh Adam – Murray dismissed them as fantasy. According to Mike McGill, one of the former chairman’s right-hand men at the Murray Group, Adam had resigned as a director towards the end of 2000, a year before the EBT scheme was introduced. Murray doesn’t see how Adam could have known anything about contracts but McGill said: “The club used an old offshore EBT scheme in 1999 with three players. “That scheme is the subject of the small tax case. The Revenue provided some information to us in early 2011 and we conceded (the £2.8m) based on that information and provided for payment in the club accounts. Whyte did not pay it. “The other scheme was started in 2001 and the larger scheme involves a payment into an offshore trust. But there is no contractual entitlement on the part of the players. That is key to the defence and key to the allegations made by the SFA.” Murray added: “Hugh didn’t know. He wanted to buy Rangers at the time I had the club. He did a great job in running the pools but he became a bit anti-me. “I’ve looked through every year to check my facts and there were no double contracts. Categorically, there were no dual contracts.” Is he lying?, I despise the bastard but I really do hope he is correct. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 ebts aren't contractual they can't be. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 As for reports Rangers used double contracts to conceal payments to players – the stories were based on information supplied by former Ibrox director Hugh Adam – Murray dismissed them as fantasy. According to Mike McGill, one of the former chairman’s right-hand men at the Murray Group, Adam had resigned as a director towards the end of 2000, a year before the EBT scheme was introduced. Murray doesn’t see how Adam could have known anything about contracts but McGill said: “The club used an old offshore EBT scheme in 1999 with three players. “That scheme is the subject of the small tax case. The Revenue provided some information to us in early 2011 and we conceded (the £2.8m) based on that information and provided for payment in the club accounts. Whyte did not pay it. “The other scheme was started in 2001 and the larger scheme involves a payment into an offshore trust. But there is no contractual entitlement on the part of the players. That is key to the defence and key to the allegations made by the SFA.” Murray added: “Hugh didn’t know. He wanted to buy Rangers at the time I had the club. He did a great job in running the pools but he became a bit anti-me. “I’ve looked through every year to check my facts and there were no double contracts. Categorically, there were no dual contracts.” Is he lying?, I despise the bastard but I really do hope he is correct. I believe that's pretty much the only interview he's given since this mess began, been silent since March. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 I doubt theirs much sdm could say that would do anything but inflame the situation. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 He could say fucking sorry. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 and admitt guilt by extension. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
simplythebest 0 Posted July 20, 2012 Author Share Posted July 20, 2012 Plenty to be sorry about titles stripped or not. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 yes but he would be admitting our guilt also by extension. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted July 20, 2012 Share Posted July 20, 2012 There was no double contracts, they know it and we know it. They are trying to call our bluff and want I confession for something we didn't do, in return we get the licence. Shower of scumbags they can shove it right up their arses. Murray is right on this one say f#*k all make them prove it, he knows they can't. 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.