SDM denies cheating

[Frankie 8,153]

[breaking on PA Sport]

 

Sir David Murray has denied cheating took place during his stewardship of #Rangers ahead of SPL independent commission.

 

Key points:

 

- During my stewardship of #Rangers no rules were breached or circumvented.

- I reject and resent any suggestion that anything was done which amounted to cheating.

- The SPL is attempting to retrospectively rewrite laws to incorporate items not previously covered.

- I cannot be anything other than angered at the suggestion #Rangers should be stripped of titles or other competition victories.

- The SPL is once again seeking to invest itself with a power of retrospective penalty beyond that prescribed in its own rules.

- Bayoneting the wounded is neither justified or proportionate.

 

http://sport.stv.tv/football/clubs/rangers/114055-sir-david-murray-denies-cheating-while-rangers-owner/

Edited August 6, 2012 by Frankie

[Guest Dutchy]

Well we did get fines amounting to £2.8 million and agreed to pay it, but Whyte didn't houour that agreement.

 

Of course, just because the wee tax case went a bit pear-shaped, doesn't mean it was 'insitutionalised' and we cheated the tax man on the level being suggested, but somethings were done badly.

[forlanssister 3,050]

Full statement:

 

Sir David Murray has criticised the SPL investigation into alleged off-contract payments and slammed the suggestion that titles could be stripped as unjust.

 

In a statement published though Press Association, Murray accused the SPL of acting outwith their own rules and with an agenda against the Ibrox club.

 

Sir David Murray's statement in full

 

 

 

I have decided to issue this statement because of the concerns which I have at the continuing attempts to inflict further punishment on Rangers Football Club.

 

While the "Newco" Rangers was rejected for membership of the SPL on the publicly stated grounds of sporting integrity, I would question whether this was the underlying motive for many who took this decision. I am not totally convinced by the explanation that they were reacting to the opinions of the supporters of their individual clubs.

 

This, in my opinion, is a suitable answer to cover many other agendas.

 

I applaud the decision of the SFL to accept Rangers for membership and respect the decision of the member clubs of the SFL to admit Rangers to its Third Division.

 

The problems at Rangers have brought no credit to Scottish football and are a tragedy for the Club and for all those connected with it and who support it. They cannot be condoned and it is appropriate that there should be a proportionate penalty for the Club for the events over the last year.

 

However, I urge all those connected with Scottish football to bring this sad affair to a close - now. Bayoneting the wounded is neither justified nor proportionate.

 

Nevertheless, I cannot be anything other than angered at the suggestion that Rangers should be stripped of titles or other competition victories.

 

This suggestion is an insult to the staff and players who achieved these successes thanks to skill, hard work and commitment and for no other reason.

 

It is also an insult to the thousands of Rangers supporters who spent their hard-earned money to support the Club they love.

 

I hope that those presently in charge of Rangers show sufficient resolve when it comes to resisting this move, despite the incentives being offered to do otherwise.

 

I believe that there is a misconception which may lie behind this suggested penalty and accordingly it is my duty to clarify certain matters.

 

During my stewardship of Rangers no rules were breached or circumvented and I reject and resent any suggestion that anything was done which amounted to cheating.

 

As was required of a PLC, all accounts were fully audited and made available to all entitled parties. All football rules were complied with. All enquiries from entitled parties or organisations were answered.

 

To those who criticise certain actions undertaken on behalf of the Club, I suggest that they familiarise themselves with all relevant rules before they come to any conclusions or express any opinions.

 

This is particularly relevant to the SPL rules where it would appear that there are efforts to retrospectively rewrite laws to incorporate items not previously covered.

 

The SPL rules variously required disclosure of all contract of service matters and all payments from a club to a player.

 

It would now appear that these are to be rewritten to incorporate non-contractual loans from independent third parties and other non-contractual matters.

 

If this is the case then press comment over the past few years would appear to indicate that several clubs other than Rangers may well have fallen foul of the soon to be changed historic laws.

 

It would also appear that the SPL is once again seeking to invest itself with a power of retrospective penalty beyond that prescribed in its own rules.

 

Much has been said and written about EBTs. It should be noted that the tax treatment of these is an issue as yet unresolved and it is wrong to prejudge the outcome.

 

It must be stressed that the tax tribunal will determine the appropriate tax treatment in respect of the arrangements operated.

 

This is not a criminal matter and there is presently no question as to the legality of these schemes.

 

Rangers agreed contracts of employment with its players (and staff). The EBT scheme involved the contribution of funds into an offshore discretionary trust managed by independent trustees.

 

The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates.

 

There was no contractual or beneficial entitlement to the funds on the part of any individual and the monies paid to EBTs were not "remuneration" in terms of any rules applying to the Club.

 

Since 2001 when the EBT scheme was introduced, the amounts contributed were disclosed in the audited financial statements of the Club. These audited accounts were provided to the SFA and SPL as required.

 

As the law stands, it is the right of every taxpayer to minimise his tax liability.

 

For example, taxpayers are entitled to maximise contributions to pension funds and benefit from the resultant tax allowances. Tax AVOIDANCE is a right. It is tax EVASION which is a crime.

 

In December 2010, as a result of legislation changes introduced by HMRC, EBTs were rendered tax inefficient. Thereafter the Club made no further contributions to EBTs.

 

For the avoidance of doubt, many thousands of employees in many areas of business and commerce have benefited from EBTs.

 

Rangers sought only to provide financial security for players (and staff) within the rules of law and football. To suggest that this amounted to cheating in the sporting context is an allegation which is without any foundation.

 

I, of course, wish the "new" Rangers every success for the future. I have no doubt that the present generation of players and staff will make a positive and beneficial contribution to the SPL and, in due course, return the Club to a position of pre-eminence in Scottish football.

 

However, I am determined to support those who served the Club with such dignity and integrity during my stewardship.

[Blue Moon 1,113]

Good to see SDM speaking out at this time when there is mounting pressure about EBTs He has consistently said that everything was done by the book and no rules were broken. I fervently hope he is right.

 

Interesting slant about retrospective rules. I had no idea about that and if that is true must be fought tooth and nail. I hope the whole thing collapses.

 

It is disappointing that so few in the media took up the supporter clubs' statement yesterday. We must keep the pressure up and the club should be speaking out officially too. I hope their lawyers are ready to do battle.

[Tannochsidebear 2,316]

Better late than never I suppose.

 

With this and the fans groups statement, the pressure is mounting on the SPL, and we must ensure it is kept up for as long as they insist on going forward with this witch-hunt.

 

It is amazing that with the list of sanctions available to any tribunal after a guilty verdict numbering 18, why it is only number 18 in severity is being discussed prior to any trial?

[UCF2008 0]

While the motivation for Murray to make that statement may be questionable, I don't think there's much to argue with what he's saying.

 

Our current owners may do well to take note and avoid making any further throwaway comments or unnecessary admissions of guilt regarding 'crimes of previous owners'.

[simplythebest 0]

Still hate him.

[Juancornetto 1]

Better late than never I suppose.

 

With this and the fans groups statement, the pressure is mounting on the SPL, and we must ensure it is kept up for as long as they insist on going forward with this witch-hunt.

 

It is amazing that with the list of sanctions available to any tribunal after a guilty verdict numbering 18, why it is only number 18 in severity is being discussed prior to any trial?

 

Why is it even being discussed? We've had ex Celtic players and current management in the papers giving their views without any fear of reprisal. The conclusion must be that their views are sanctioned at the very top level.

[MoodyBlue 0]

should have come out with this and the tone of it long before now

[Guest Dutchy]

Why is it even being discussed? We've had ex Celtic players and current management in the papers giving their views without any fear of reprisal. The conclusion must be that their views are sanctioned at the very top level.

 

Everyone and his dog has a view on what should happen to Rangers, even the dog's flea's have more say than the fans of our club.

 

Anything that highlights the unfairness of this SPL which hunt is all good, and it's about time the media started pointing out all the other clubs use of these types of tax dodging.