Darthter 542 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 It has been reported that the main evidence against our use of EBT's is that Side letters were given to EBT members informing them of the trusts and how they worked. The big question is....does a "side letter" constitute a contract??? My understanding of a contract is an legally binding agreement, signed by both parties. My understanding of a side letter is a communication containing information which the employee should be aware of. Obviously, the devil is in the detail, but if the club were to issue a side letter to all new players detailing the various means of transport in order to get to both Ibrox & MP.....would this constitute a contract to use public transport or taxi's??? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Well unless a lot of players are lying they never signed a side letter or received one. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 the only one ever printed was a few lines saying we ran an ent scheme if the player was interested. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted September 25, 2012 Author Share Posted September 25, 2012 signed a side letter . to my limited understanding, I think that could be a key issue. It's one thing giving someone an informative letter, but its something completely different if they are required to sign it!!!! IF a letter was issued stating that the club operate a trust scheme through a 3rd party that the player was able to access, I don't see that as a contract. Its stating that a facility is available should they wish to use it. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Another question worth asking is whether the SPL's so-called evidence is purely based on the word of certain people at Pacific Quay.... BBC Scotland has seen evidence, which was submitted to the courts, suggesting that 53 Rangers players and staff had side-letters giving undertakings to fund their sub-trusts with cash. I posted the whole Pacific Quay CSC article in the AJ statement thread - http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?48012-Alastair-Johnston-Statement 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Another question worth asking is whether the SPL's so-called evidence is purely based on the word of certain people at Pacific Quay.... I posted the whole Pacific Quay CSC article in the AJ statement thread - http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?48012-Alastair-Johnston-Statement But the evidence wasnt submitted by BBC... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappa 0 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 But the evidence wasnt submitted by BBC... No the evidence was submitted by whoever was working on behalf of HMRC and it's apparently them who (illegally?) allowed the BBC access to the evidence or copies of the evidence. My point is though... what have the SPL got? Have they got solid, verifiable and reliable evidence or are they just basing their case on using Pacific Quay employees as witnesses? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 Another question worth asking is whether the SPL's so-called evidence is purely based on the word of certain people at Pacific Quay.... I posted the whole Pacific Quay CSC article in the AJ statement thread - http://www.gersnetonline.co.uk/vb/showthread.php?48012-Alastair-Johnston-Statement so they haven't seen the letters only evidence that their are letters. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 to my limited understanding, I think that could be a key issue. It's one thing giving someone an informative letter, but its something completely different if they are required to sign it!!!! IF a letter was issued stating that the club operate a trust scheme through a 3rd party that the player was able to access, I don't see that as a contract. Its stating that a facility is available should they wish to use it. The SPL think they have a signed document that the player will us the EBT and are claiming its a second contract, as far as I know all they have is a poor photo copy of the informative letter you speak of and the ramblings of Hugh Adam. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
craig 5,199 Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 No the evidence was submitted by whoever was working on behalf of HMRC and it's apparently them who (illegally?) allowed the BBC access to the evidence or copies of the evidence. My point is though... what have the SPL got? Have they got solid, verifiable and reliable evidence or are they just basing their case on using Pacific Quay employees as witnesses? They could call on HMRC as witnesses too presumably as that is where the evidence is likely to have come from. 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.