Souness: loan was for work, makes interesting dates claim


Graeme Souness today told a Daily Record reporter that he received his EBT LOAN from Rangers because:

“I was doing work for Rangers.

“I was in between jobs. I was going to scout for Glasgow Rangers at that time”.

Payment in return for “doing work” is what this whole business is all about. Payment for “doing work” is taxable. It cannot be remunerated via a non-repayable loan.

Mr Souness was manager of Blackburn Rovers from 14 March 2000 until 6 September 2004.

As Blackburn manager, he signed Tugay from Rangers on 17 May 2001. He requested £30,000 from the Rangers EBT scheme five weeks later.

“In between jobs” Really? These dates make that an interesting claim.

Click Here for Comments >

About Author

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 14

  1. The Resolute Mr Pastry on

    CANAMALAR@4:18 – What is my agenda?



    On the subject of the cheating and tax dodgy-dealing of the occupants of Ibrox, I thought that we had the same agenda – i.e. that they are held to account and sanctioned for cheating Scottish football in particular and the UK taxpayer in general.



    On the other hand, I don’t blame Peter Lawwell and the Celtic board because I have no ALTERNATIVE agenda.

  2. MOONBEAMSWD on 11TH APRIL 2016 1:04 PM (Previous article)



    Kill Ultra




    Whether or not the apparent raising of the idea of a threat came from TSFM or otherwise via the public display of Auldheid’s picture on twitter. The threat is there and it is public.



    Time for you to concede the point as the threat is evident no matter were it was made.



    As I said obfuscating on this point renders all your other points meaningless. At least it does in my opinion.







    MWD, I’m not sure what you want me to concede. I’m not even sure where Auldheid’s picture was posted, how long it was there, was it removed, have steps been taken to identify the culprit,etc. I’ve almost as many questions on this as I have for the resolutionersJ



    It might have seen in my earlier reply to you that I treated the matter too lightly when I offered the platitude ‘I know how you feel’, but I was merely trying to make that remark chime with Auldheid’s own under-stated approach to the matter. Of course it’s a serious matter, but it has to be kept in perspective.






    I am sure a resolution, if your intentions are honest (not for me to question but there is obvious suspicion from the guys with regards your intentions), would be for you to identify yourself to one of the four guys in the present rather than referencing an email dated back 3 years ago, meet up with one of them and discuss the merits or otherwise of your argument then move on from there.




    Seems simples to me.









    The email dated back nearly 3 years ago contained an attachment with my signature for Resolution 12. I had assumed it would have been kept. :)


    I will be sending Canamalar a copy later today.







    Currently, there is a policy proposal to legislate to permit the retrospective taxing of loans from offshore trusts. There is though no current mechanism at law to allow it, hence the need to legislate. It won’t be an issue until/unless the proposed legislation is passed, and thereafter, been tested in the courts. I’d say we’re looking at some considerable time away befire anyone’s settling their tax affairs thus.




    The legal question over whether or not EBTs are “disguised remuneration” is ongoing, but HMRC have the power to issue Advance Payment Notices and have been exercising that power following the closure of their EBT Settlement Opportunity some months back. Anyone who had an EBT will have received an APN and will now need to pay up. I personally know contractors who used similar schemes and have had to do so. The case is even more crystal clear for ex-Rangers player because they were stupid enough to issue side-letters stating the loans would never have to be paid back. Trust me – EBT users are already paying HMRC what they believe is due right now.

  4. The Resolute Mr Pastry on

    SFTB@4:09 – When making a definitive statement, I ALWAYS deal in facts and am happy to be tackled on any post.



    I do NOT personally attack individuals and try to answer ‘point for point’



    I do NOT print ‘half-truths and ‘fill in the blanks’ to present them as fact and therefore suitable to my narrative.



    However if we rule out any form of satire and/or opinion, then what would be the point of this blog?

  5. Dont think souness was scouting at all.he bought players from rangers for well inflated fees and was reimbursed for his troubles.platers like boumsong,ferguson,amouruso,tugay,kiznashvilli..etc im sure theres more..spent over 20m on rangers players

  6. !!Bada Bing!! on

    Souness paid ridiculous money when at Blackburn buying Huns










    To name a few…….I’m sure his EBT is pin money compared to the transfer carve up…..allegedly….

  7. GlassTwoThirdsFull on

    It’s either some kind of damage limitation exercise. Or some sort of effort to deflect attention from something else.


    Are they trying to make it look like the EBTs caused the liquidation, rather than a decade plus of spending way beyond their means?

  8. The Battered Bunnet on




    I can see it being applied to contractors on the basis that they were not employees, and it would be viewed as a commercial transaction, not employment remuneration. For PAYE purposes, it’s the employer who is het, hence the need to change the law to capture EBT beneficiaries of employers who are now, er… deid.



    At the moment, the law doesn’t provide for clawback from the employee.



    Saying that, this is my lay understanding of the law through experience, and by no means a professional view.

  9. blantyretim is praying for the Knox family on

    What is the orcs put money into partners accounts or purchased many homes in their name or family members and gifted them ?


    Can they go bankrupt whilst not being forced to pay tax or sell property if it’s in someone else’s name?

  10. The Souness IV is staggering on a number of levels:



    1. That he was asked about EBTS at all. After years of everyone knowing he received one, long after his employment at Ibrox had ended, why now are the press getting round to asking him about it? It’s not as if he has been a hermit these last five years.



    2. That it was a Record reporter who asked him. I’m sorry, The Record? the biggest cheerleader for Murray and the Continuity Sevco myth? Picking away at a glaring inconsistency in the EBT affair now? Again: why?



    3. That he gave an incriminating answer, appearing to confirm the dodgy nature of the Ibrox EBT system, and offering an answer whose timeline looks iffy, at best.



    If this was an attempt to put out a statement then it was a cack-handed way of doing it, because GS has now left himself looking very dodgy indeed. The impression given is that he was scouting for RFC whilst employed somewhere else, and being paid in a very, erm, creative way for it.



    Is it possible he was taken by surprise? He’s never struck me as the naive type. He is an experienced media operator. But his stalling and look of dear-in-the-headlights does make it seem as if he was genuinely shocked to be asked and instead of batting it away, stumbled into a dreadful non-answer which raises even more questions.



    A curious, curious moment in a truly surreal saga…

  11. i'vehadtochangemyname on

    how the h%ll can he be in between jobs if he is ‘doing work’ for rangers – bent as h%ll

  12. Mr. P



    “I do NOT personally attack individuals ”



    “because you actually thought it could be TRUE – based on the reputation and mischief-making the self-serving TRUSS.”



    “It would indeed be a bad day if the conduct and reputation of any opponent puts ‘real’ Celtic supporters off going along to back our team. ”



    Those among us who take this view are in my opinion ‘a bunch of silly weans’




    Are those bolded parts not personal criticisms? Just because they are un-named does not mean they are un-targetted. When you mention The Trust and Board malcontents and use unflattering descriptions, you are indulging in personal attacks.



    And that was just taken from your more recent posts. Go back far enough and you will find named targets.



    Aff oot for a bit

  13. Canamalar it looks like OCD obsession on



    in your reply to Natknow, I think you miss one detail out, like the DOS, had the side letters not existed then your point about no mechanism is available would be right however, as there are side letters that identify it was money that should have been considered taxable income, I expect it will be treated as such, else HMRC like the DOS might simply use the threat that if it is not dealt with as an oversight, then it will be dealt with as evasion.



    now that I think about it I don’t suppose you would possibly know what you were talking about :)

  14. GlassTwoThirdsFull on

    hebcelt on 11th April 2016 4:34 pm


    Phoned the SPFL re post split fixtures looks like tomorrow but the guy did’nt sound very sure – amateur hour, totally unprofessional. H H




    To be fair, it’s probably quite a bit of work to find a way to get our last fixture v Aberdeen to be at Pittodrie.

  15. Very strange, that the current on-shift poster currently penning as Mr Pastry, should refer to the CT as ‘The TRUSS’ but refers to the discussed EBT recipient as ‘Graeme’ !!!




  16. GlassTwoThirdsFull on

    And if it WAS for doing work for Rangers, surely you would expect to be PAID for that? Not just get a loan which has to be paid back……?

  17. The Resolute Mr Pastry on

    SFTB@4:51 – Short answer No.



    If it is established, via hard evidence, that Peter Lawwell and/or the Celtic board have been wifully complicit in any underhand dealings with the SFA and Rangers FC, I will be the first to post my condemnation on this site.



    I don’t, at this stage, believe there is any credibility in the ‘stories’ that circulate on this blog, which implicate Celtic in any conspiracy.

  18. THE BATTERED BUNNET on 11TH APRIL 2016 4:55 PM






    I can see it being applied to contractors on the basis that they were not employees, and it would be viewed as a commercial transaction, not employment remuneration. For PAYE purposes, it’s the employer who is het, hence the need to change the law to capture EBT beneficiaries of employers who are now, er… deid.



    At the moment, the law doesn’t provide for clawback from the employee.



    Saying that, this is my lay understanding of the law through experience, and by no means a professional view.




    I can only describe the situations I know about. The guys I know affected by this were employees of companies. They were paid a monthly on which they PAYE tax, and were separately paid an EBT sum which was issued irregularly as and when the trust directors decided. Exactly the same arrangement as footballers.



    Since the 2014 Finance Act which allowed HMRC the power to issue Accelerated Payment Notices, all of those guys have received an APN and had 90 days to settle. Most of the have been able to but one or two were in the scheme a long time and owed LOTS. They are now being pursued by HMRC to sell assets (houses, cars, tellys) in order to pay up.



    You are correct that the dispute is not settled and won;t be for some time. But in the interim HMRC are collecting what they believe would have been due under APNs.

  19. Badabing / drew 1967



    Sound spot.I wonder if the english fa will question him?




  20. The Battered Bunnet on




    Whether EBT or DOS, if the arrangements don’t work, and the beneficiary is an employee, it’s the Employer who’s het.



    That’s why they’re trying to change the law.



    Imagine a scenario where an employer deducted Tax and NI in ordinary course, but didn’t remit it. The Employer is het.



    Equally, if an Employer pays an employee without first having deducted PAYE, HMRC view the gross payment as being net of PAYE, and the Employer is het again.



    This occurs quite commonly with ex gratia payments that exceed the allowance, for example, or where employees have been paid ‘casually’ – off the books, cash in hand – as another. Responsibility for PAYE falls on the employer. That’s the way the law’s developed in this area.



    Side letters or not, if the scheme is held to be unlawful, it’s the empoyer who’s chased, the employee being allowed the assumption that the remuneration was taxed at source. How many UBS or Deutsche Bank employees are writing cheques to HMRC this week?

  21. blantyretim is praying for the Knox family on



    thanks for answering my question in your reply to TBB

  22. The Resolute Mr Pastry on

    SFTB@4:59 – No individual is mentioned – if we cannot criticize organisations and employ satire in making our points, then free speech is dead.



    If you disagree with me,that’s OK – but using faux offence as a retort, really is ‘scraping the barrel’

  23. WWW(GBWO) on 11th April 2016 8:36 am


    excellent book “The Road of the Crowd”, and presumably quoting some official publication – these are the capacities of Scottish football grounds at the outbreak of the Second World War.



    How some of those grounds were ever passed for these sorts of crowds is incredible.



    *due to poor living and working conditions, i.e. no much money tae feed yersell right, people were smaller and ground capacity was based on how many bodies could be squeezed intae the ground, this all changed after the Taylor Report.



    Boghead, Dumbarton………. 15,000



    In the Scottish Cup quarter final Dumbarton lost 0-4 to Raith Rovers, I was there and met big John McPhail who was “reporting” for the Record outside, an 18,001 crowd still stands as the record home crowd.



    However, the key word here is home as although the official crowd for the Junior Cup second replay between Clydebank and the Vale of Leven was recorded as 14,000, most people who were there, be they Sons of the Rock, Widow Twankies or Jeelyeaters put the attendance at over 20,000 and this game is unofficially regarded as the ground record for Boghead Park.



    BTW might have been there tae but no recollection of it, neither do I have of the Junior Cup Final at Hampden 5 months earlier where the Vale beat Annbank United 1-0 before a crowd of 56,000 although I have been told I was definitely there.

  24. The Battered Bunnet on




    You know some interesting folks in some interesting industries. Do these arrangements fall within the scope of the December 2010 legislation, with APNs issued after the expiry of the settlement opportunity?

  25. The Resolute Mr Pastry on

    THEBARCAMOLE@5:02 – I used “Graeme” with ‘tongue firmly in cheek’ – being that he seems to have proffered clear evidence on behalf of our general interests.

  26. Mr Patsy



    You posted that you’d ‘heard’ something. When asked if you had any evidence you replied that it was ‘satire’ as you had none.



    In the world of social media that’s commonly known as trolling. (Amongst other things!)

  27. BT



    How did it go today?


    Where they pulling your leg?



    Hope all is good


    Belated happy birthday to mini :-)




  28. TBB


    So in effect you are saying that it’s down to the employer, and the employee is in the clear, all very well if the employer is still trading.


    In the case of the hun, what happens ?



  29. blantyretim is praying for the Knox family on

    Couple of weeks until results known


    Thankfully not my brain or that would have taken longer;-)



    The scans carried out in the back of a hgv in car park at the jubilee


    No expense spared for ole BT



    Thanks bhoys


    Until then keep taking tramadol and amatrpityline as well as solpadol



    No wonder I’m off ma head

  30. BT


    If hector goes after individuals, I would imagine you will see a fair few going bankrupt, but as TBB has said, maybes they are in the clear, or I am picking it up all wrong.



  31. mullet and co 2 on

    Someone may have said this already but if Souness was getting paid for work done pre his Blackburn employment in a period he was between jobs, this would mean he had an EBT agreement pre any other recipient. I believe Craig Moore was first?


    Souness is either telling lies that this was for work done while he was between jobs or that EBTs were in use in 1999 2000 or earlier? Souness left Benfica in 1999 then being employed by Blackburn in March 2000.


    despite some EBT beneficiaries being employed pre the EBTs they where not beneficiaries until later in their contracts? I thought Craig Moore was first?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 14