Last night my brother reminded me of a comment he made after the 0-0 against Benfica on match day one of the Champions League, “I hope we’re not sitting with one point after five games”. Expectations can be as high as you like, but reality based on experience at that stage suggested Celtic would struggle to have more than a single point at this stage of the tournament.
A solitary point away from home in our Champions League history would lead the harsh realists to expect our trips to Lisbon, Barcelona and Moscow would be fruitless, leaving the enormous matter of tackling Barcelona at Celtic Park.
Two of those away games resulted in defeat, and we were behind in Moscow before one of the most significant fight-backs in modern Celtic history. It’s difficult to find perspective for the win over Barcelona. Suffice to say, they won 0-2 in Lisbon and 0-3 in Moscow. Celtic’s 2-1 remains the most astonishing result of this season’s Champions League.
Manchester City’s failure to qualify for the knock out stage, with their seemingly limitless budget, tells the story of how difficult this tournament is. England’s other mega-wealthy club, reigning European champions Chelsea, sacked their manager this week as the expectation they are likely to be eliminated at this stage dawned.
Beating Spartak and qualifying for the knockout stage will be suitable reward for a remarkable team.
The very first CQN Annual is NOW in stock and shipping order yours here! P.S. it’s great.
In case you missed the story, check out the Celtic Trust’s ‘Stand up for the Green Brigade‘ call on the 12th minute on Saturday. Full details on the Trust’s site.
P.P.S. Stand up for the Green Brigade.
[calameo code=0003901717b03ef5e64cb lang=en page=100 hidelinks=1 width=100% height=500]
813 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- ...
- 22
- »
Ernie
After you
Should have been
Hail Hail
Especially ever since I watched Celtic beating Barcelona, I real can’t be bothered watching
ordinary other teams.
GazeboNights CSC
An Dun
20:56 on 22 November, 2012
‘The third party was providing ‘loans’ not a salary. No ?’
Yes.
Except for this.
‘The Appellants have declared by way of a letter dated 29 September 2011 that five players: Mr Selby, Mr Inverness, Mr Doncaster, Mr Barrow, and Mr Furness had their guaranteed bonuses paid to them via the trust mechanism. This was in respect of a guarantee that the players would receive a certain amount each year in squad bonuses under the terms of their written contracts.’
Spacing?
53,973m – Victor Wanyama has covered a total of 53,973m in 5 CL group matches, the most from a player from a British club!
!!Bada Bing!!
I thought that was his value
Sorry, am I missing something ..? When a football club is liquidated, their history is erased from all SFA / UEFA records……..if the fans of another club tell themselves that they have won trophies before they even came into existence, there’s not a lot anyone can say to that, other than to recommend that they visit a shrink……and tell them to take greengo & sally with them……….the zombies didn’t go bust due to EBT’s …….. They went bust because they spent money they didn’t have, racked up a mountain of debt, and the bank ‘called in’ the loan (or is it the new definition, ‘trust’)
Oh, the zombies are deed, get it intae yur Heid…….
“Employee” Benefit Trust
Apologies – info on my other PC. Got a spreadsheet breaking down sums paid; directors, management, players (signed for fees/ free agents) and loan players.
Can anyone explain – how a loan-player (not an employee) qualifies for the scheme – when that player is the property of another club?
My understanding that the loan-player costs/ wages are normally invoiced by the lending club to the borrowing club as a trade invoice on (typically) a monthly basis.
Recall – at least 2 loan-player were on the list as receiving circa £200K (in total).
Comments/ opinions anyone?
Ernie,
You’re not making up the “Mr Doncaster” are you? :-)
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire
21:02 on 22 November, 2012
‘Ernie..,
I expect he was referring only to those without side notes’
Well you would have thought so, but no, apparently not……..
‘Mr Grey spoke also to his negotiation of a contract for Mr Purple with Rangers. The aspects of basic wage, bonus and appearance money were discussed. (At that detailed stage officials of Rangers other than Mr Black were involved). The concluding offer by Rangers was of two elements, half in salary and half in benefit form from the Remuneration Trust. The contract providing for the salary and a separate document, referred to as a “side-letter”, bore the same date. His client was interested in the total global figure. Mr Grey did not consider that the terms of the “side-letter” required to be disclosed to the SFA. It did not represent a benefit from the Club. There could only be a “recommendation” by the Club to the Trustees.Also, since Rangers were willing to grant tax indemnities, he was further reassured about the trust mechanism.’
ernie lynch
21:04 on 22 November, 2012
Yes.
Except for this.
‘The Appellants have declared by way of a letter dated 29 September 2011 that five players: Mr Selby, Mr Inverness, Mr Doncaster, Mr Barrow, and Mr Furness had their guaranteed bonuses paid to them via the trust mechanism. This was in respect of a guarantee that the players would receive a certain amount each year in squad bonuses under the terms of their written contracts.’
________
Fair enough. I can hear the ‘honest oversight’ excuses already though. Jardine saying they’ll get a slap on the wrist. I tend to agree with him.
PFayr
20:22 on 22 November, 2012
————————–
Its a secret
Ernie..,
Did you see my question to PFayr earlier
If the Trust refused to issue a sum identified on a trustee’s side note does the trustee have legal recourse to challeng the Trust for breech
Had a bit of an argument with a hun in work,ye i no its a daily occurrence in there a cesspit full of thems.The boy jinky would concur.
Anyways it was about dual contracts and the possibility of the rightful stripping of titles.The loudmouth suggested a ton bet on it.
Well i said,things are a bit tight with Christmas and me with 2 kids how about you lend me a ton to cover the bet and if i lose il pay you back when Im Deid.Does that sound fair enough to you?
Answer was aye right!!!!
Long shot I know but if anyone has a spare ticket for the Moscow game then I am looking for two.
Cheers bhoys.
Whether a payment to a player is liable for tax is a totally seperate issue from whether the payment breaks footballing rules.
The FTT established 3 sets of payments: ones that RFC (il) agreed were taxable, ones that the FTT ruled as taxable and the majority that the FTT ruled were not taxable,
The footballing issue is whether payments were made to players for footballing activities over and above the contracts lodged with the football authorities.
So …
Any payments made that were within the contracts lodged are ok in football terms.
But …
Any payments made for footballing activities over and above the contracts lodged are illegal. These make the players receiving them ineligible for any games they played in, which should all be assessed as 3 – 0 defeats.
The only ways RFC (il) can be cleared are if all payments were within the contracts, or if they can argue that the payments were not for footballing activities. Quite why else a football club would channel millions of pounds to football players is anyone’s guess. But I’m sure they will have a go at justifying it.
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire
21:17 on 22 November, 2012
‘Ernie..,
Did you see my question to PFayr earlier
If the Trust refused to issue a sum identified on a trustee’s side note does the trustee have legal recourse to challeng the Trust for breech’
You mean if a player didn’t get his ‘loan’ could he sue the trustees?
No, not as such, but as I understand it, as a Protector of the trust he could have the trustees changed.
The original trustee company Equity were in fact replaced because they were regarded as obstructive.
Che
Yes our legal lady seemed impervious to the siren calls of the brotherhood.
Still this perverse judgement once lodged for appeal in London should be reversed.
Cue Alastair Johnston and another obscure chant to the pentangle claptrap the brotherhood seem to indulge in when danger is around the corner.
Anyone got a link to the ludgement?
Ernie,
A we add to my last question,
As the players only agreed to allow the use of EBT on the understanding they would receive their remuneration as per the side letter agreement.
Its obvious that some people are feeling a tad deflated after the FTT decision. The facts are they cheated and they admitted it. They did financial dope or however you wish to phrase it.
Its a fact that they admitted they owed over £4m for the misuse of EBTs in the so called small tax case. Thats a fact. Whether you cheated a little or a lot is neither here nor there, you are still a cheat. They also withheld PAYE and NI to the tune of £14m in 2011.
If they feel vindicated by the big tax case verdict its because of the MSM’s spin. Not because of the facts.
Are we talking payments or salaries with respect to contracts lodged with SFA ? If it’s salaries, they’ll claim the payments were loans not a salary. Therefore no non-disclosure.
Gordon_J backing Neil Lennon
21:18 on 22 November, 2012
We shouldn’t assume that Nimmo Smith will regard himself as having to follow the decision of the tribunal regarding so called ‘loans’. He could decide that for his purposes what Mure and Rae regarded as loans were contractual payments.
Ernie..,
I thought the judgement was base on the fact the the trustee’s had no control over the disbursement, what you have said makes a lie of that, no ?
Can anyone advise (simplistically) why Celtic – no, EVERY football club in the world, no, – EVERY business in the universe should not use EBTs from tomorrow onwards as clearly the findings of the FTT, (and MSM waffle) have told us its acceptable to avoid paying tax that could have bought many British (heroes) soldiers armoury to save them in conflict?
MorallywrongCSC
Good and pertinent post from taysider, contributor on TSFM
Thursday, November 22, 2012 at 11:09
61 1 Rate This
Apologies in advance for the length of this, but there is something about this FTT decision which to me looks unusual.
The length of the decision itself is striking at 145 pages. But what also catches the eye is that the majority decision comes to an end at page 59! The dissenting decision begins on page 60 and ends at page 145, that is 85 pages compared with only 59 for the original decision. How does that compare with your typical FTT decision?
Dr Poon’s dissenting opinion is so long because she not only has a different interpretation of how the legislation applies to the facts, she also cannot subscribe to the conclusion reached by the majority
that: (page 60)
‘we are unable to make further Findings-in-Fact in support of there being an orchestrated scheme extending to the payment of wages or salary absolutely and unreservedly to the employees involved’
A critical role of the FTT is the findings of fact that support their decision. If their decision is appealed to the Upper Tribunal, that body’s role is essentially to decide whether the FTT decision was wrong in law. They are not a fact finding body and the facts they will rely on in determining whether the FTT decision was wrong will be those found in the FTT decision.
Here is what Dr Poon says, bottom of Page 60:
“A body of evidence that is not narrated in the majority Decision, which seeks to give a judgment in principle on the efficacy of the trust arrangements as a tax avoidance scheme, is of critical relevance in forming my view of the transactions in their real terms. On the whole, in my quest ‘to find the realities of the arrangements that were agreed’ [Lord Morris], I place more reliance than my colleagues do, on the
documentary evidence. As regards the oral evidence, so far as the corporate witnesses and the trustee representative of the Appellants are concerned, their Witness Statements convey to me an element of choreography, perhaps due to the active involvement of counsel in their preparation. More specifically, I have reservations about the credibility of certain witnesses, namely, Mr Red, Mrs Crimson and Mr Scarlet. The oral evidence has already been narrated in the majority Decision, and the Respondents’ major concern is noted (para 152 MD) regarding ‘the English practice (followed here) of Counsel drafting the initial form of Witness Statements’. In making my extra findings-in-fact, I have accorded greater coverage therefore to the admitted documentary evidence as providing a more realistic record of the nature of the transactions. Obliterated in some instances and by no means complete, nonetheless the documentary evidence that spans over a decade provides a
contemporary record of the transactions as they happened at the time, and affords an
account of the true intention and role of the participants in the scheme.”
To summarise, she placed greater weight on the documentary evidence over 10 years than the witness statements for the reasons she gave.
Key issues to me are:
1) How unusual is it for a dissenting opinion to not only give reasons for dissenting in terms of interpretation of law but also interpretation of fact and at such length, 62 pages of fact (pages 60 – 122) compared with 40 pages (pages 4-43) for the majority opinion?
2) Why did Mure and Rae decide they could not make further findings of fact on the evidence that Dr Poon refers to between pages 60 and 122?
3) In any hearing at the Upper Tribunal, is it open them to consider both the evidence supporting the majority decision AND the evidence supporting the minority decision?
4) The evidence supporting the minority decision would for sure not be available to an upper tribunal and the public without the dissenting opinion, that is all the evidence between pages 60 and 122 where Dr Poon found documentary evidence that supported her findings as to the “realities of the arrangements that were agreed.”
PFayr
Ok to send you an email re. CICA?
MWD
cragleabhoy
20:55 on
22 November, 2012
Is there a link to the FTT decision in full?
Thanks in anticipation.
—————————————————
CLB
Google TC02372
EKBhoy
21:21 on
22 November, 2012
Is the appeal procedure to the UK Supreme Court? If so then that certainly gives me hope :=)
Young Bhoys copying The Bhoys
EKBhoy,
no need to answer notice its the The Upper Tribunal Administrative Appeals Chamber (UT(AAC)) but still outwith Scotland !
MWD
have you a ref number yet?
An Dun,
The on message Darryl King tonight said that the zombies argument will be that loans are not salaries therefore not contractual therefore no obligation to disclose to the SFA.
The thing is, there are side letters which say the loans never need to be paid back.
Which brings me back to the two chaps that disagreed with Doctor Poon. How can they say that these payments are loans in light of the fact that there were side letters? They used previously established case law to come to the conclusion. Case law can conflict.
Was a deal done to allow Rangers to be liquidated but have the tax case go against HMRC only to see HMRC as a creditor receive the proceeds of the sale of Murray Park and Ibrox at a later date?
HMRC are still a creditor right? BDO have powers to wind back to the sale of ‘Rangers’ when the CVA was rejected. Charlie boy is tying up the whole deal with proclamations of Ibrox being worth a gazillion. Then theres ticketus.
professor green
21:23 on
22 November, 2012
Am no …….. They’re deed, and the HMRC won’t even get the money they ARE due, nor will any other creditor……..they won’t even pay the minor creditors……. They’re a joke, and they know they are …….I’m delighted I won’t have to even think about them again …… LOL
*THE KING VIC 67*
21:26 on
22 November, 2012
The reason why we couldn’t use EBTs now is the the Govt caught on to this exploitation of a loophole in the law and made it explicitly ilegal. As fast as they are shut down, accountants come up with other loop holes to exploit.
canamalar
I learned off the CST site and from cross references on here, yourself included. For the record I do support the Green Brigade, I just do not support a boycott against Celtic FC at this point in time. I can’t honestly answer all your questions, it happens, but I am not ignoring the points made therein. I did not learn much from Celtic’s statement, and have not heard anything from that source since. I referred to the FSF survey to illustrate that what is happening to the Green Brigade at Celtic Park and to Celtic Supporters generally on our travels is not unique, it appears to be part of a coordinated policy implemented in both Scotland and England, Cardiff too I’m sure. Over twenty years after Hillsborough, the same attitudes apply.
Neil canamalar Lennon hunskelper extrordinaire
21:26 on 22 November, 2012
‘Ernie..,
I thought the judgement was base on the fact the the trustee’s had no control over the disbursement, what you have said makes a lie of that, no ?’
Just to clarify the terminology. The trustees are the people who administer the trust/sub trust. The player, or his family, are not the trustees, he/they are the beneficiary.
The player as Protector could change the trustees of his individual sub trust.
The player however did not have absolute control over his sub trust being created. That was done at the suggestion of the club to the trustees of the main trust. I think that is regarded as breaking the link. It’s a fiction of course but that’s how tax avoidance schemes work. They say one thing knowing another thing will happen.
67Heaven … I am Neil Lennon..!!.. Ibrox belongs to the creditors
21:35 on
22 November, 2012
Me neither!