Darthter 542 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 The claim is that by using EBT's we were fielding players that we couldn't otherwise afford. How true is this??? Could the club have afforded these players at that time without the EBT, or at the least afforded some of these players?? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I think we saved about £2M a year with a turnover of over £50m. With star players on something like £20k a week it means we possibly could have afforded a couple less - or about five bit part players in a huge squad which we hardly used. Who knows, maybe we just wouldn't have signed Flo... However, SDM was spending money with profligacy and could possibly have spent just as much and then paid back another £20m in the share issue. Or we could have been say £35m in debt instead of £14 last year which would have been difficult but manageable. The fact is that we saved about £23m but have now lost more than that from our squad and will lose more than that again by being in div 3 and more than that again by being banned from Europe. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tumshie RFC 0 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Depends on what you mean by could afford. Murray was running the club at a considerable loss for the most part. Personally I think we could have but the EBT's were set up to stop our highly paid players paying (for the most part) 40% tax on their earnings. Other companies (and bigger companies than Rangers) came to an agreement with HMRC for tax avoidance schemes. It should not take away from the fact that we won the trophies that we did though. The fact that some people are comparing us to the likes of Marseille and Juventus who were bribing referees and match-fixing is frankly laughable. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
forlanssister 3,062 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 The claim is that by using EBT's we were fielding players that we couldn't otherwise afford. How true is this??? Could the club have afforded these players at that time without the EBT, or at the least afforded some of these players?? Every club that goes into administration does so because it's been fielding players it could not afford EBT's or no EBT's the outcome is the same. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Every club that goes into administration does so because it's been fielding players it could not afford EBT's or no EBT's the outcome is the same. I disagree. Rangers ended up in administration due to the threat of unaffordable fines and interest that resulted after they spent what they thought they could afford using what they thought was legal at the time. Completely different to knowingly overspending then going into administration. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest carter001 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I disagree. Rangers ended up in administration due to the threat of unaffordable fines and interest that resulted after they spent what they thought they could afford using what they thought was legal at the time. Completely different to knowingly overspending then going into administration. I agree. If HMRC had came to us and said 'look the scheme you have been using for the past 10 years has not been adminstered in the correct manner, as such, you will need to pay the tax to the tune of £23m. If you refuse to pay this amount we will seek, and are perfectly justified to do so, to add penalties and interest, making the total £75m. If you do go down this route we will take you the full way, even if it means shutting you down.' Maybe a conversation like this did happen and sdm dismissed it. Will we ever know? We might even have been able to agree a lower settlement than the £23m. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,320 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 And while we are at it, once we were known to be in trouble with HMRC, potentially oweing xxm pounds, they banks were giving us a wide berth and thus we essentially became fair game to people like Whyte. And just for the sake of the argument, we ended up in administration because of Whyte not paying tax and PAYE, not because of the EBT thing. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest carter001 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 And while we are at it, once we were known to be in trouble with HMRC, potentially oweing xxm pounds, they banks were giving us a wide berth and thus we essentially became fair game to people like Whyte. And just for the sake of the argument, we ended up in administration because of Whyte not paying tax and PAYE, not because of the EBT thing. I agree with that but, the EBT case hanging over us probably had genuinely interested buyers in growing the club running for the hills. That only left the scavengers such as CW. You can't help but get the feeling that all of this could have been avoided!! Oh that's right....ego's were involved. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
calscot 0 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 I agree. If HMRC had came to us and said 'look the scheme you have been using for the past 10 years has not been adminstered in the correct manner, as such, you will need to pay the tax to the tune of £23m. If you refuse to pay this amount we will seek, and are perfectly justified to do so, to add penalties and interest, making the total £75m. If you do go down this route we will take you the full way, even if it means shutting you down.' Maybe a conversation like this did happen and sdm dismissed it. Will we ever know? We might even have been able to agree a lower settlement than the £23m. I still don't think that would be fair. I think like any judgemental body, HMRC should have a limited window of opportunity to take people or entities to task over technicalities. If HMRC had come in and complained after the first year, we would have stopped and owed a couple of million total. You can't let people think they are doing nothing wrong for years and then backdate it. It's just not right in any scenario. The only exceptions I can see, is if it's blatant criminality. There is no other scenario where this backdating is considered ethical. In fact in some laws the opposite applies. If you move your fence into your neighbour's land and they don't complain for ten years - the land becomes yours. Using that type of thinking we should be able to use EBT's in perpetuity. Most other debts are statute barred after six years and using this rule, we'd have owed about four years worth or about £10m. But the biggest problem is that HMRC created a loophole that was based on "intention" which can't be proved. They then let you apply the loop hole for 10 years without complaint and then after 12 years decide that they "know what you were thinking" and ask for the accumulated money back plus double in interest and penalties. If we did that, it would be considered extortion and probably criminal. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
der Berliner 3,320 Posted July 25, 2012 Share Posted July 25, 2012 Would be a rather sinister tactic by the HMRC though, wouldn't it? 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.