Traynor On Rangers EBTs'

[ian1964 10,427]

Powerbrokers have known of Rangers' EBTs for years - why move now?

 

THE shenanigans which caused the collapse of Rangers are scandalous but, when you blow away myth and fantasy, a stretch of the imagination is required to declare Rangers cheated anyone.

 

 

 

THIS might stick in the craw of those Holy Willies who believe EBT payments to have been the work of the devil, or worse Rangers, but it might be time to drop this costly SPL charade.

 

Financial mismanagement at Ibrox has already cost the game more than enough in legal fees but only the heartless and mean-spirited would continue to argue Rangers and their fans havenâ??t suffered.

 

Whether or not theyâ??ve suffered enough is a debate which will still rage, mostly in the cyber domains of the deranged, but itâ??s nonsense to suggest they havenâ??t been damaged.

 

Theyâ??ve lost status and credibility. Theyâ??ve been docked points, fined, ridiculed and hounded. Theyâ??ve been accused of cheating and phrases like â??match fixingâ? and â??financial dopingâ? are now routinely tossed into the mix, even in reasoned discussions.

 

A huge, dark cloud, bloated with swirling accusations, stupidity, and hatred, sits over the case of Rangers and their use of Employee Benefit Trusts. The story has been distorted, in some cases by misunderstanding, but in others by deliberate design.

 

Some argue they grabbed a handful of titles through financial deception and now these must be erased from the record books. The reasoning is Rangers won with players they couldnâ??t have afforded if theyâ??d been paying tax on the full amounts. They cheated the tax man, the country and their fellow clubs. But did they really?

 

The shenanigans which caused the collapse of Rangers are scandalous but, when you blow away myth and fantasy, an immense stretch of the imagination is required to declare Rangers cheated anyone. EBTs were not illegal in the 10 years Rangers used them and both the SFA and SPL were fully aware of them.

 

They were never hidden and always declared in the audited accounts under the term Remuneration Trust.

 

Rangers shut them down when the law changed in 2010 and also at that time it was said the club had been operating a dual-contract system in relation to the EBT. The SFA contacted Rangers and asked for an explanation, which was given.

 

The SFA then granted Rangersâ?? licence to continue playing, just as they had done every year of the EBT era. The SPL didnâ??t have any objections either at that time.

 

Neither one of these bodies thought to question Rangers at any time in 10 years so what has changed? Why are the SPL, a body short of cash, spending money on another legal pursuit which may prove to be trivial?

 

Even those supporters of other clubs, who believed EBTs were illegal for no other reason than they wanted it to be so just because it was big, bad Rangers, must accept they were above board. Unless, of course, they now choose not to believe the SPL, the very body theyâ??ve been insisting must bring Rangers to task. In explaining why Celtic have no case to answer, even though they had an EBT for Juninho, the SPL have underlined that this form of payment was acceptable.

 

But the crucial difference, according to the SPL, is Juninho didnâ??t take any EBT payment until heâ??d left the club. The league say Rangers have to be investigated because their EBT use was widespread and their players took payments during Ibrox stints.

 

Thereâ??s no denying Rangers had a huge number on EBT over a 10-year period but the SPL, if the documents before Lord Nimmo-Smith and his commission are thorough, will find quite a few of these players did exactly the same as Juninho.

 

The SPL, it can be assumed safely enough, are questioning whether or not letters to players detailing their EBT are secondary agreements but Rangersâ?? lawyers insist these canâ??t be described as contracts because EBTs are discretionary loans, or bonus payments, and not contractual.

 

In fact, these payments are so bizarre that players get their loans which are to be repaid with interest at the end of an agreed period but actually, the money is rarely, if ever, given back.

 

Juninhoâ??s payment was apparently a â??golden handshakeâ? but for what? Not for working in a Celtic Park tea bar thatâ??s for sure. He got his payment for his contributions as a player and, rather than make him different from anyone at Ibrox, that makes him exactly the same.

 

So, basically, what we are dealing with is a technicality. Rangers didnâ??t attempt to hide the EBT but if in registering the players without making reference to the loan letters they breached any of the SPLâ??s rules, why werenâ??t the errors picked up from year one?

 

The SFA and SPL saw the annual accounts, saw the EBT and allowed Rangers to carry on

regardless. Now, however, the SPL, or their lawyers, Harper Macleod, have found something wrong but are we saying Rangers should have titles taken away because of a technicality or the SPLâ??s own incompetence?

 

If so, thatâ??s patently absurd. And it is petty in the extreme.

 

Rangers, who had about 11 different chartered accountants on their board in the EBT years, would have known if the authorities had any problem with their papers and there would also have been an â??informalâ? exchange of certain pieces of financial information between Rangers and Celtic.

 

These two would have scrutinised one anotherâ??s annual accounts so if anything had been amiss with Rangersâ?? practice why wouldnâ??t Celtic have brought it to light?

 

If there is a problem why was it overlooked for so long and who will take responsibility at the SFA and SPL?

 

The same people, incidentally, did nothing when alerted to the fact Craig Whyte wasnâ??t handing over PAYE millions. Indeed, one SFA individual actually had dinner with Whyte late last year. Yet, he was allowed to carry on for months until Rangers slipped into administration. Iâ??m sorry but neither the SFA nor SPL can examine their own standards and behaviours and believe they did enough.

 

I am not suggesting for one second the gameâ??s authorities are responsible for Rangersâ?? collapse. Neither was it an EBT habit, nor that outrageous level of debt run up by David Murray 12 years ago, which closed Rangers.

 

Thatâ??s down to one man, Whyte, who got a winning club when the debt had been reduced to £18m. He should and could have been stopped before the damage became too severe and before HMRC had lost a fortune, although they themselves could have minimised the cost by acting earlier.

 

They were well aware of Whyte through his previous dealings and might have taken the view he had bought Rangers hoping it would be put into liquidation if the big tax case ruling went against the club. Rangers would have been lumbered with a bill of around £50m and Whyte could have blamed HMRC for closure.

 

It didnâ??t play out that way and the verdict isnâ??t expected now until October but why did the revenue allow Whyte to continue for so long when he wasnâ??t handing over taxes?

 

They were communicating with administrators Duff and Phelps over this issue and were offering payment plans which Whyte didnâ??t use.

 

Why? If theyâ??d taken action at the right time, instead of waiting until June, when they refused Charles Greenâ??s CVA offer and Rangers were plunged into liquidation, the cost to many of the creditors would have been much less. They are the real victims, not supporters who think theyâ??ve been done out of a few titles.

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/powerbrokers-have-known-of-rangers-ebts-for-years-1327563

[andy steel 0]

What the devil are they up to? Keevins toadying to the celtc fans, Traynor cosying up to us...although he is right, it must be said.

[ian1964 10,427]

Conspiracies sound hollow as the EBT accusation came from within

Michael Grant

Chief football writer

 

FOR more than a decade, The Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith served as a judge in the Court of Session and the High Court.

 

He is a Privy Counsellor so his opinion is good enough for the Queen. He was schooled at Eton before studying classics at Balliol College, Oxford.

 

Charles Flint QC is one of the most respected experts in sports law in Britain, having acted as an advisor and an arbitrator in a series of complex and high-profile cases. Nicholas Stewart QC has been a Deputy High Court Judge in England for over two decades. He, too, is an internationally renowned authority on sports law and arbitration.

 

Fair play, then, to whoever it was at the Scottish Premier League who had the nerve to tell his Lordship and the QCs that their time will be deliberately wasted during the Rangers/undisclosed payments hearings because the whole thing has been decided in advance. Guilty verdict and penalties: all done and dusted, pre-judged by the SPL itself before Nimmo Smith does what he's told and puts it in writing. That's how the conspiracy theory goes, at least. Lord Nimmo Smith, Flint and Stewart – among the finest legal minds in Britain – are at the head of the SPL's "Mickey Mouse" investigation (Charles Green's words) and its "kangaroo court" (Sir David Murray).

 

Sadly, neither Green nor Murray will say so to their faces, because neither of them will turn up when the Independent Commission gets down to business in November. That's a shame, because the accusations are serious and ought to be taken seriously by all.

 

Rangers, and Murray, should protest their innocence as long and loud as they like, as anyone would when faced with significant accusations. By not attending, no-one acting for the club can cross-examine witnesses or present a different interpretation on evidence which is heard. Instead of simply maintaining that they can comfortably defend themselves on all counts, there have been consistent attempts to undermine the credibility and motives of the investigation itself.

 

The allegations against them weren't trumped up by an outsider: they originate from a former Rangers director, Hugh Adam. They are innocent unless proven guilty and are entitled to a fair and honest investigation by the SPL. After Adam's allegations, evidence to suggest they had a case to answer was collected by the SPL's lawyers, and a verdict will be reached and any punishment applied by an eminent judge and two QCs. At no point is any other club involved in the process.

 

This isn't an investigation into using EBTs, remember, it's a probe into specific allegations of SPL rule-breaking. It began with a statement on March 5 which said: "The SPL board has instructed an investigation into the alleged non-disclosure to the SPL of payments made by or on behalf of Rangers FC to players since July 1 1998." Adam said of the alleged payments: "They weren't included in the contracts. That was the whole point of them."

 

Now, either you believe Adam's version of events or you don't, but were the SPL supposed to ignore that? The initial investigation to find evidence substantiating Adam's claims was carried out by Harper Macleod, the law firm which has acted for years as the SPL's retained lawyers (and therefore represented Rangers, as an SPL shareholder, too). This has angered many Rangers supporters because Harper Macleod have also worked for Celtic, who would be the primary beneficiaries of any potential stripping of Rangers' titles. Should the SPL have used another law firm to avoid all accusations of conflict of interest? Maybe, but what exactly is the innuendo here: that an established and respected company which is a member of the Law Society of Scotland would fabricate or suppress evidence in a football investigation? Seriously?

 

Green has said: "The commission is not independent of the SPL. It has been appointed by the SPL. I don't question the impartiality of the individual panel members but whatever decision they reach is a decision of the SPL." Well, yes, of course it is. But if there is no question of their impartiality, that is all an accused can ask for.

 

This investigation has not "pre-judged" Rangers nor, despite all the fevered debate about it, have they been condemned to being stripped of titles. They may be cleared just as they might not. Any punishment imposed on them could have nothing to do with titles being taken away. No-one can possibly know how Nimmo Smith, Flint and Stewart will rule on the case.

 

Ralph Topping, the SPL chairman, has been predictably mute and invisible while his league's investigation has been ridiculed, and given the sensitivities there should have been far more transparency and detail about why Rangers are being pursued over EBT payments while Celtic were not after using one to pay Juninho.

 

But the fact remains: Rangers alone face a major investigation because they are the only SPL club accused of making widespread undisclosed payments. And the accusation was made by one of their own.

 

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/opinion/conspiracies-sound-hollow-as-the-ebt-accusation-came-from-within.18889295

[calscot 0]

That's the first time I've seen a journalist "get" the real situation. He'll get the pelters from Celtic fans... The Traynor one that is.

Edited September 17, 2012 by calscot

[the gunslinger 3,366]

good article from traynor and interesting points on whyte.

[amms 0]

Is it possible to agree with both those articles? Traynor is correct, this shouldn't be going anywhere now, it's wasting money and is simply a witch-hunt. At the same time it is going ahead and I feel Green and Rangers need to deal with that, simply ignoring the hearing is a risky strategy.

[der Berliner 3,257]

But the fact remains: Rangers alone face a major investigation because they are the only SPL club accused of making widespread undisclosed payments. And the accusation was made by one of their own.

 

A) "Rangers alone" ... yes, we know that from our support's and club's persecution with regards to singing sectarian and bigotted songs. And since all and everyone could hide behind the UEFA TBB/FTP verdict, they gave and give us broadsides galore, while leaving other offenders go on to their hearts' content.

 

B) Maybe I am wrong, but we did not make a single undisclosed payment. We openly told people about the EBTs and how much was paid into them. The SPL knew this, the SFA knew this, and, as it happens, the press hacks who wrote the above articles knew this too. Loans taken from the Trust by the players are not payments by Rangers to the players as far as I am aware. Of course, would it all fall flat on the face when the players concerned simply pay the loans back (if only in theory)?

 

C) Perhaps I am wrong again, but at the time of Adam, we did not make have any EBTs, had we? Methinks Frankie wrote some article or comment on that ... i.e. the poor interview by Daly (?) and the way it was done.

Edited September 17, 2012 by der Berliner

[Darthter 542]

Celtic's EBT....Ok, so Juniho didn't take any payment while at the club - fair enough.....but in order for him to be able to take a payment later, Celtic must have been paying money into the EBT at some point. Were these payments made after he had left, or during his time at the club??? If they were made while he was at the club, and Celtic didn't notify the SPL/SFA of these payments, they surely there are in exactly the same boat as us.

 

Also, its worth noting that we are not being investigated over the financial side of things. No-one, from my understanding is investigating the actual financial side of things. The SPL are investigating the ADMINISTRATIVE side of the EBT's - were they declared correctly & were there secondary contracts. The SPL are not investigating whether we could afford them. Therefore any claims about "financial doping" or cheating should be thrown straight oot the windae!!! It would be nice to see the SPL make comment on this & set the record straight.....

[calscot 0]

Is it possible to agree with both those articles? Traynor is correct, this shouldn't be going anywhere now, it's wasting money and is simply a witch-hunt. At the same time it is going ahead and I feel Green and Rangers need to deal with that, simply ignoring the hearing is a risky strategy.

 

What can a company do to influence investigations into the past finances of a different company at a time when the first company didn't even exist? It may be going ahead but partaking in it will not help and only give it a false credibility.

[rbr 1,247]

A) "Rangers alone" ... yes, we know that from our support's and club's persecution with regards to singing sectarian and bigotted songs. And since all and everyone could hide behind the UEFA TBB/FTP verdict, they gave and give us broadsides galore, while leaving other offenders go on to their hearts' content.

 

B) Maybe I am wrong, but we did not make a single undisclosed payment. We openly told people about the EBTs and how much was paid into them. The SPL knew this, the SFA knew this, and, as it happens, the press hacks who wrote the above articles knew this too. Loans taken from the Trust by the players are not payments by Rangers to the players as far as I am aware. Of course, would it all fall flat on the face when the players concerned simply pay the loans back (if only in theory)?

 

C) Perhaps I am wrong again, but at the time of Adam, we did not make have any EBTs, had we? Methinks Frankie wrote some article or comment on that ... i.e. the poor interview by Daly (?) and the way it was done.

 

Adam resigned/left Rangers in the summer of 2000 , we didnt start using EBT's till after this , and also by his own admission he had been marginalized at Ibrox way before his departure