Rangers "misusing" the EBT scheme is exactly what we all think it is. And its massive.

The EBT issue is much simpler for the SPL and does not hang on the Tax Case result.

For the SPL it is about payments made to players, through the EBT but could have been paid in any number of ways, that were not declared in accordance with the rules to properly register players in order to compete in the SPL.

The payments were made, they were not declared and fat sally knows this, he was assistant manager for good portion of the time. These players were ineligible to play, Rangers cheated the punishment is simple but severe, Fat Sally knows this.

Why else would they want the investigation stopped (for the life of me I can't see how they have any bargaining position - but that's the arrogance of RFC(IA) carrying over to Sevco Scotland)

if the ebt case goes against rangers and they are stripped of titles ,
would clubs who competed in europe against rangers and their potentially ineligible players be due compensation for being denied the opportunity to progress in europe? .
since the players registrations were approved at that time by the spl/sfa then would they be liable to pay damages to affected clubs?

Hopeless Hoops Hump Hairdrie 4-0

The EBT case isn't the decision maker in the 'dual contracts' investigation. Only those in charge at Rangers could be liable for player registrations, however - those in charge at Rangers also had high profile positions with the SPL/SFA so the whole thing would continue to be a mess.

But it's a mess that must be cleaned up before Scottish Football can move forward.

If Rangers do get stripped of all their honours from 2001-2010, it's going to be amusing when Tony Mowbray sues Celtic for unfair dismissal, since it'd now mean they sacked him in the middle of a title-winning season.

Gotta feel for Alex McLeish, though; the poor bloke's gonna be left with fewer trophies than Jim Jefferies when all this is done!

You clearly have no concept of how the EBT scheme operated. That is part of the problem with ill-advised people on such forums, if they don't know what it's about just make up your own take of the situation.

Rangers have appealed the EBT claim from HMRC. Not just part of it, all of it. We are not awaiting the FTTT announcing the amount, we are awaiting them announcing a decision. The deliberate use of the word "guilt" is to imply that laws were broken. No-one has been accused of breaking any laws as that would involve criminal charges. Tax avoidance is not tax evasion. The EBT scheme was clearly listed in the Club accounts every year it operated. The accounts were audited, the club used tax advisors, the accounts were sent to SFA/SPL. This was not an under-the-table plot. There was no match-fixing, players and officials of other teams weren't bribed.

so what part of what I wrote do you disagree with, would you agree that payments from 3rd parties would be against SPL rules and that a trustee is a 3rd party?

Oh dear. They have appealed the bill sent to them by HMRC, they were found 'guilty' by HMRC. The EBT scheme is legal if used correctly, Rangers did not use it correctly, thus the reason for their 'guilt'. I take it the side letters to those receiving the EBT, advising that they did need to repay the 'loan', were also sent to the SFA? were also included in the acounts? No I don't think they were. So it was under the table payments, it was cheating, it was match fixing.

on illegality of RFC(IA)'s actions taken from rangerstaxcase.com

"The laws covering tax evasion and tax avoidance are identical. The only real difference is that in cases of tax evasion, such overwhelming evidence will exist that HMRC believes it can prove that the people involved planned to commit fraud. The perpetrators must also have known that what they were doing was criminal when they did it. (Our lawyers friends will provide a more precise definition, but this will be good enough for most purposes). This is a pretty difficult standard to achieve. In fact, it is so difficult to prove, criminal prosecutions for tax evasion are normally reserved for accountants and lawyers- people whose knowledge of tax law is easier to demonstrate.

This explains why several high profile tax fraud cases, such as the recent one involving the canine pet of a football manager, ended in acquittals despite evidence that looked pretty impressive to the general public. In Scotland, this high hurdle is elevated further by the requirement for corroboration.
Tax avoidance can be illegal. It is a term used to describe tax schemes that simply will not be pursued in a criminal court. Some avoidance schemes are illegal, while others have been deemed to be legal if implemented correctly. HMRC even have a tax avoidance scheme registration plan (DOTAS). Tax payers can use DOTAS registered avoidance schemes and be sure that they will not be accused of criminality.

Those who are deemed to have breached tax law through an illegal avoidance scheme are pursued through a civil process i.e. a tax tribunal- rather than a criminal court. This is where Rangers are. They are not accused of any criminal action at this point (and it is unlikely that they will), but they have been accused by HMRC of pursuing illegal tax avoidance practices. This resulted in them being sent tax assessments for underpayment, interest, and penalties. Rangers have appealed this determination by HMRC and the First Tier Tribunal (Tax) will decide whether to uphold Rangers’ appeal or not. The First Tier Tribunal will effectively rule on whether Rangers’ tax practices were legal or illegal.

You might wonder why criminal charges would not be charged if someone was found to have shredded key documents in a tax investigation. Surely this would be criminal? Well, mibbees aye, mibbees naw.

It could be deemed criminal if you could prove that the person who requested the shredding was knowingly destroying a document to subvert an investigation by a government body. Proving this degree of intent will often be impossible. So, tax collectors will settle for collecting taxes- through the civil courts. In the tax tribunal process, interest payments and penalties are used to ensure that tax avoiders (that is ones deemed to have broken the law) do not gain an advantage by paying a smaller amount later. In cases, where there is the possibility of criminal behaviour by ‘minor cogs’ in the machine rather than the ‘big gear’, there would also be a reluctance to prosecute."

I see Craig Whyte is now launching a debt recovery company, oh the nerve of him

He will not set foot in the west coast of scotland, but will run the comapny from someplace else, now one will have direct access to him, by phone or other means

Wonder if he will chase rangers for there debts, which he had cause to happen

And this story is in the sunday mail, for anyone who wants to know

A story that strangly suggests a company will play in Division 3??

allan mcgregor has signed for besiktas according to this website, though going by the 1 comment it isnt a done deal

http://www.turkish-football.com/news_read.php?id=3234

The delay is because someone is trying to explain to Leah that Turkey isn't something you'd just have a christmas.

Actually, they may have to with the transfer ban being in place. I can see John Greig getting a game, especially now that Bradley Wiggins has made sideburns fashionable again.

Real Radio axe it's fitba phone in.

Derek Johnstone is now looking for another microphone.

Good. listening to that clown 'DJ' was a joke.

Apparently it's the result of new media or 'internet bampots' as it's otherwise known.

Can someone please explain to me why the SFA, SPL and SFL are bending over backward to to help Rangers altrough they have done wrong weather its old or new Club

They stopped bending over backwards when the rest of Scottish football got involved.

Can anyone spot the mistakes in this picture?

would need a bigger ticket if they were to print Sevco Scotland whatever numbers are after it.

Wonder if they'll throw a wobbly like Kelty Hearts.

I see Brian Kennedy has joined the Batman bandwagon as The Blue Knight Rises

no he hasn't

it's like bloody pantomime isn't it