Did Celtic have more than one EBT?

[DUDE 0]

Interesting to see what'll come out of this, I kind of refuse to talk about the Tims though since the amount of talk about us from their side is incredibly large which botheres me a bit. I think we don't need to engage in the same bs as they do.

[Steve1872 4]

alex thomson‏@alextomo

Juninho and Celtic: I understand the EBT money paid he got wasn’t declared to SPL as per SFA rule 12.3. So why 'no case to answer' ?

[the gunslinger 3,366]

celtc admitt it wasn't declared to the sfa.

[der Berliner 3,267]

Snatched from FF and deedle ...

 

Well, until February 22nd the case against Rangers was based on 'financial doping'. This was the phrase spouted by Lennon and others.

 

Then an article appeared on Celtic Quick News talking about SFA Article 12.1 and this was picked up by the mainstream media.

 

'Double contracts' was the phrase used for a while until we moved to 'payment outside contract'.

 

While it would be possible to view Rangers' non-declaration of EBT payments as a technical, but minor, breach of SFA and SPL rules, the whole case against Rangers is based on the idea that the club gained an 'unfair advantage'.

 

(When Livingston were found guilty of paying an amateur player - he had to be an amateur to sign outside the transfer window - the punishment was based on the view that Livingston did not receive a significant advantage on the field of play as a result.)

 

In other words, Rangers will be punished for 'financial doping' but under the guise of 'payments outside contract'. Payments to players come from a trust, though, and Rangers couldn't have declared them as part of a player's contract.

 

The SFA and SPL were fully aware of these issues for a decade and took no action.

 

So, what we are seeing is effectively the retrospective outlawing of EBTs in Scottish footall.

 

Should Rangers have paid HMRC the central issue would still remain.

 

My point is that the SPL and the people pulling their strings are jumping from one justification to another in order to hammer Rangers and let Celtic off the hook.

 

Not much more needs to be said. Apart from trying to figure out how to prove the agenda shown and pursued by the SPL/SFA.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

deedle is a very wise man I find.

[Steve1872 4]

 

 

 

2012-09-12

GIOVANNI DI STEFANO 'THE DEVILS ADVOKAT' SET TO INTERVENE IN EBT HEARING IN NOVEMBER

Giovanni Di Stefano 'The Devils Advokat' and a shareholder in Rangers Football Club PLC (in administration) is set to intervene in the hearing set out by the Scottish SPL investigating the EBT matter at Rangers Football Club.

 

In a strongly worded letter Di Stefano made clear that the whole matter was "wholly misconceived" and he supported the stance taken by Charles Green in refusing to recognise the SPL Commission.

 

The letter faxed to the SPL and the SFA states as follows:

 

"I refer to my previous correspondence with regard to the above and related matters. I note with some concern that the SPL has set a date for a ‘hearing’ on of Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) transactions to Rangers players from 2000 to 2011 and potential violations of SPL Rules.

 

I note also that your ‘commission’ has issued directions including “both Oldco and Newco” to file documents they intend to rely upon by 1st November 2012. Leaving quite aside that the Statute Limitations permits only 6 years in any civil matter it seems to me that the whole question of the SPL establishing a ‘Commission’ whilst RFC PLC is in administration is wholly misconceived.

 

I am a shareholder of RFC PLC and as such herein serve you my intention to be heard in pro per and make the necessary submissions without prejudice to any other rights. I require from you the specific allegations and a full set of documents that the SPL rely upon in this matter.

In the event I do not receive such or am precluded please accept this letter as a formal protocol letter for Judicial Review.

 

I cannot but emphasize that the establishment of a Commission in the manner prescribed is wholly misconceived. I fully support the view adopted by Charles Green Esq. on behalf of the ‘Newco’ in that his company is not, cannot, be effected in anyway by any action taken by the SPL.

 

The misconception and complete waste of time, resources and public image of Scottish football in my view raises the question of the SPL per se bringing the game into disrepute. It is one matter if the SPL sought a commission to investigate all clubs during the past six years but it is wholly discriminatory and prejudicial to target simply RFC PLC."

 

Speaking from London Di Stefano said "This is wholly absurd and clearly targeting individually one club RFC PLC. As a shareholder I will attend solely on a without prejudice basis. You really need a search party to find anything remotely contrary to the SPL rules that a whole heap of others have not done including the SPL themselves. I will ask the payments made to certain individuals at the SPL.

 

Its best they let sleeping dogs die their own natural death rather than try and compound matters for RFC PLC. One thing though it is certain that RFC PLC cannot be liquidated whilst these kind of proceedings are ongoing. The SPL should simply let the clubs now get on with football. All this is affecting the game and the Scottish National team."

 

The SPL made no comment.

[andy steel 0]

Cheers, Gio. Just when I thought things couldn't get any more confusing.

[GovanAllan 0]

If this goes to a real court of law the SPL will be laughed out the room it's absolutely ludicrous.

[foggy dewhurst 0]

it all dtinks like a box of rotten fish remember the man in charge of them at that time was brian quinn a man who knew more about tax dodges than anyone .

[DUDE 0]

The SPL made no comment.

 

Who wouild've thought that. Well seems nobody has told them that no answer is an answer.