I see several “fans’ groups” are engaged on the subject of our old friend, Juninho, who played around 13 games for Celtic eight years ago and benefited from an Employee Benefit Trust before and during his time at the club.
Can you believe this is where their focus is?
As Sir David Murray and a gaggle of his former directors will tell you, there is nothing illegal in EBTs, it’s the undeclared second contracts the football authorities have a problem with. Juninho’s EBT was not subject to any contract or side letter whatsoever. Moreover, our then chairman, Brian Quinn, regarded EBTs with suspicion and instructed the club to declare Juninho’s to the Revenue. Celtic even paid tax on money paid to the EBT.
The SFA and SPL, and every journalist in Scotland interested in getting a story right, are fully aware of the facts.
I suppose running with this beats looking at links between Green and Whyte. Keep up the good work, guys!
And for the record, stripping titles is not the ultimate sanction, not by the length of Argyle St.
1,126 Comments- Pages:
- «
- 1
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- ...
- 30
- »
Kayal33 on 6 August, 2012 at 15:00 said:
Alex McLeish says stripping of titles a non starter. EBTs – had lawyers look at the contracts at time – no cloak&dagger stuff.
Mark Benstead
+++++++++++++++++++++
No doubt the defense wil be we thought they were OK. In which case why did Martin Bain CEO of Rangers and holding a position in the SFA ask for his request to be paid by ebt to be shredded?
McLeish might have a point that he was given assurances those above him did not share but it was those above him who are responsible for seeing the clubs plays by the rules.
I can well understand individual players pain at having a title they thought they had one fairly being removed but one way to make folk appreciate wrongdoing is forthem to suffer the pain it causes.
ScotPatsFan on 6 August, 2012 at 15:32 said:
>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry…..no. Thank you or your kind efforts to help. For my sins,I fell asleep and then listened to the second half via radio and watched the re-run on Celtic TV.
HH !
or = for
stoopid iPad. stoopid me.
RobertTressell on 6 August, 2012 at 15:23 said:
Remember the ninth beatitude
“Blessed are the dogged, they shall get a bone”
:)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I said “bone”
Right you Bampots ye kin awe go back to sleep. Sir DAvid Murray has said there was no cheating during his stewardship of the ex club and he resembles the suggestion that there was any cheating during his tenure!!!
Right that’s that then, whit’s next..
Jamie Borthwick@jamiekborthwick
Sir David Murray denies cheating took place during his time at Rangers. Statement to follow on http://sport.stv.tv
Looks like (S)DM has not yet had a letter from the FTTT. He is responding to the SPL enquiry into dual contracts
Kayal33 on 6 August, 2012 at 15:00 said:
Alex McLeish says stripping of titles a non starter. EBTs – had lawyers look at the contracts at time – no cloak&dagger stuff.
LOL, more than one contract then?
CQNers,
need to ask a big favour from anyone travelling to Helsinki that will be around Glasgow city centre today or tomorrow.
CQNer dettolandtheblackash has a spare ticket for me…just I can’t get there to pick it up from him.
Is there anyone who could possibly meet him on my behalf and collect it please?
Will be in Helsinki approx 4/5pm wednesday local time…
Hail, hail
That’ll be ole Persy Bysshe Shelley banned on FF then.
Ole Ernesto has got his begrudger breeks on the day.
Ole Moonbeams is so angry his pants are on fire.
He’ll not be averse to an independent inquiry clearing him then?
SSN
Jim White , bandsman uniform, in full bang the drum defiance while reading out SDM’s ” I reject any suggestion that what we did was cheating speech”.
Foaming at the mouth stuff from him.
FPLG interview, downbeat says Jim
Kirsty Gallagher, respelendent in blue dress, looks on smirking.
hehehheheheheh
Rangers, The Rangers, Sevco, the cheats that keep on giving.
if the mint is saying there were no dual contracts where are the 38 (or so) contracts that were reportedly available. Or was it just the 38 payout amounts that are/were available. i can recall seeing at least 1 contract on line
Minty going down the same road as CeLo Green claiming that it wasn’t just footballing reasons that influenced the SPL decision..
Gerry Braiden @GerryBraiden
Murray: “I am not totally convinced by the explanation that they were reacting to the opinions of the supporters of their individual clubs.”
Minty Minty Minty you’re going get yours Mate, never mind you get you’re own wee bed and telly..
Desperate Men say DESPERATE THINGS :))))
Ole Chic better get oot o’ there quick, if Sir Dave’s breeks are alight…
Oh Minty…
Major fraud.
Jail.
Bluster away, the iceberg has already sunk your ship
..either that or Chic’s been lickin’ too hard, like an ole Boy Scout tryin’ for his firelighter’s badge.
Surely the Tribunal decision must be coming sometime soon? Defeat for the former club will make it clear that they cheated in footballing terms and acted illegally.
Gerry Braiden @GerryBraiden
Murray: “I am not totally convinced by the explanation that they were reacting to the opinions of the supporters of their individual clubs.”
Ole Minty is correct. Kilmarnock abstained when their fans voted them oot!!!!
Try again:
Gerry Braiden @GerryBraiden
Murray: “I am not totally convinced by the explanation that they were reacting to the opinions of the supporters of their individual clubs.”
Ole Minty is correct. Kilmarnock abstained when their fans voted them oot!!!!
Gerry Braiden @GerryBraiden
Murray concludes: “I am determined to support those who served the Club with such dignity and integrity during my stewardship.”
Expand
Reply Retweet Favorite
Awe Minty now you’ve gone too far…really man the D word should be struck from your vocabulary..
The Honest Mistake loves being first on 6 August, 2012 at 15:41 said:
LOL, the more they talk the worse it gets. To paraphrase:
Dodds: Rangers owed me money so I had them give the amount owed to me after tax by way of a returnable loan that could be recalled at any time….
So that would be them deducting the tax and pocketing it Billy? Why would you take a loan for money owed?
Alex McLeish: I had my contractS looked at by lawyers…
Not the one contract then Eck.
Jabba: “Forget oldco, newco, its Rangers simple as that” (further in the same article..) “It was oldco that ran up the debt and have been punished enough, newco should start with a clean slate…”
Short memory Jabba
“The first thing you should do with a journalist is not sign a contract with him. Take him to dinner, succulent lamb preferably, or even feed him on the carcass of another hack- without him knowing of course. Most of the time they cannot tell the difference, anyhow. That’s the rub. And give him wine afterwards, fine wine, yes and no. I often found I could get away with giving them the servants vino. Then you get round to the contract. There are many esteemed Scottish hacks wandering around who don’t even know they have sold their soul for a dinner- but Mephistopheles comes when he needs you most. That is the devils debt.”
David Murray
He who sups with the devil should have a long spoon or a short spoon with long arms…both would be preferable.
Brilliant…
James Doleman @jamesdoleman
@pault1888 Perhaps Mr Murray could tell us the “sheduled repayment date” on his 6.3 million “loan”?
Retweeted by Paul T
So says the man who sold rangers to Whyte for a £1…
Sir David Murray has criticised the SPL investigation into alleged off-contract payments and slammed the suggestion that titles could be stripped as unjust.
In a statement published though Press Association, Murray accused the SPL of acting outwith their own rules and with an agenda against the Ibrox club.
Sir David Murray’s statement in full
I have decided to issue this statement because of the concerns which I have at the continuing attempts to inflict further punishment on Rangers Football Club.
While the “Newco” Rangers was rejected for membership of the SPL on the publicly stated grounds of sporting integrity, I would question whether this was the underlying motive for many who took this decision. I am not totally convinced by the explanation that they were reacting to the opinions of the supporters of their individual clubs.
This, in my opinion, is a suitable answer to cover many other agendas.
I applaud the decision of the SFL to accept Rangers for membership and respect the decision of the member clubs of the SFL to admit Rangers to its Third Division.
The problems at Rangers have brought no credit to Scottish football and are a tragedy for the Club and for all those connected with it and who support it. They cannot be condoned and it is appropriate that there should be a proportionate penalty for the Club for the events over the last year.
However, I urge all those connected with Scottish football to bring this sad affair to a close – now. Bayoneting the wounded is neither justified nor proportionate.
Nevertheless, I cannot be anything other than angered at the suggestion that Rangers should be stripped of titles or other competition victories.
This suggestion is an insult to the staff and players who achieved these successes thanks to skill, hard work and commitment and for no other reason.
It is also an insult to the thousands of Rangers supporters who spent their hard-earned money to support the Club they love.
I hope that those presently in charge of Rangers show sufficient resolve when it comes to resisting this move, despite the incentives being offered to do otherwise.
I believe that there is a misconception which may lie behind this suggested penalty and accordingly it is my duty to clarify certain matters.
During my stewardship of Rangers no rules were breached or circumvented and I reject and resent any suggestion that anything was done which amounted to cheating.
As was required of a PLC, all accounts were fully audited and made available to all entitled parties. All football rules were complied with. All enquiries from entitled parties or organisations were answered.
To those who criticise certain actions undertaken on behalf of the Club, I suggest that they familiarise themselves with all relevant rules before they come to any conclusions or express any opinions.
This is particularly relevant to the SPL rules where it would appear that there are efforts to retrospectively rewrite laws to incorporate items not previously covered.
The SPL rules variously required disclosure of all contract of service matters and all payments from a club to a player.
It would now appear that these are to be rewritten to incorporate non-contractual loans from independent third parties and other non-contractual matters.
If this is the case then press comment over the past few years would appear to indicate that several clubs other than Rangers may well have fallen foul of the soon to be changed historic laws.
It would also appear that the SPL is once again seeking to invest itself with a power of retrospective penalty beyond that prescribed in its own rules.
Much has been said and written about EBTs. It should be noted that the tax treatment of these is an issue as yet unresolved and it is wrong to prejudge the outcome.
It must be stressed that the tax tribunal will determine the appropriate tax treatment in respect of the arrangements operated.
This is not a criminal matter and there is presently no question as to the legality of these schemes.
Rangers agreed contracts of employment with its players (and staff). The EBT scheme involved the contribution of funds into an offshore discretionary trust managed by independent trustees.
The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates.
There was no contractual or beneficial entitlement to the funds on the part of any individual and the monies paid to EBTs were not “remuneration” in terms of any rules applying to the Club.
Since 2001 when the EBT scheme was introduced, the amounts contributed were disclosed in the audited financial statements of the Club. These audited accounts were provided to the SFA and SPL as required.
As the law stands, it is the right of every taxpayer to minimise his tax liability.
For example, taxpayers are entitled to maximise contributions to pension funds and benefit from the resultant tax allowances. Tax AVOIDANCE is a right. It is tax EVASION which is a crime.
In December 2010, as a result of legislation changes introduced by HMRC, EBTs were rendered tax inefficient. Thereafter the Club made no further contributions to EBTs.
For the avoidance of doubt, many thousands of employees in many areas of business and commerce have benefited from EBTs.
Rangers sought only to provide financial security for players (and staff) within the rules of law and football. To suggest that this amounted to cheating in the sporting context is an allegation which is without any foundation.
I, of course, wish the “new” Rangers every success for the future. I have no doubt that the present generation of players and staff will make a positive and beneficial contribution to the SPL and, in due course, return the Club to a position of pre-eminence in Scottish football.
However, I am determined to support those who served the Club with such dignity and integrity during my stewardship.
Murray’s position seems to be that they were non-contractual contracts.
If he gets the jail, which jail would it be?
BarL, Peterhead, Lonforgan?
Murray statement is very poor. They’ve had a long time to get their stories straight and this is the best he could do?
Very weak attempt.
DBBIA – the test is set up nicely if England can get the last three wickets quickly.
Weather set fair for tomorrow.
Charles Mulgrew was suspended due to the number of Dutch EBT beneficiaries that have influence with the dutch FA. The amount runs into the tens of millions.
HH
celtic40me on 6 August, 2012 at 15:13 said:
Silver City 1888 on 6 August, 2012 at 15:23 said:
Are you suggesting that the article is based on a briefing from Celtic and this is their preferred way of dealing with the accusations being made about Juninho?
Murray, McCoist, McLeish today, the brain(less) trust last night, all speaking out regarding EBT/dual contract/investigation. Is something afoot? Perhaps imminently?
David Murray “I, of course, wish the new Rangers every success for the future”
SFFS
MOONBEAMS MOONBEAMS the more things change the more they stay the same.
I have decided to issue this statement because of the concerns which I have at the continuing attempts to inflict further punishment on Rangers Football Club.
While the “Newco” Rangers was rejected for membership of the SPL on the publicly stated grounds of sporting integrity, I would question whether this was the underlying motive for many who took this decision.
I am not totally convinced by the explanation that they were reacting to the opinions of the supporters of their individual clubs.
This, in my opinion, is a suitable answer to cover many other agendas.
I applaud the decision of the SFL to accept Rangers for membership and respect the decision of the member clubs of the SFL to admit Rangers to its Third Division.
The problems at Rangers have brought no credit to Scottish football and are a tragedy for the Club and for all those connected with it and who support it. They cannot be condoned and it is appropriate that there should be a proportionate penalty for the Club for the events over the last year.
However, I urge all those connected with Scottish football to bring this sad affair to a close – now. Bayoneting the wounded is neither justified nor proportionate.
Nevertheless, I cannot be anything other than angered at the suggestion that Rangers should be stripped of titles or other competition victories.
This suggestion is an insult to the staff and players who achieved these successes thanks to skill, hard work and commitment and for no other reason.
It is also an insult to the thousands of Rangers supporters who spent their hard-earned money to support the Club they love.
I hope that those presently in charge of Rangers show sufficient resolve when it comes to resisting this move, despite the incentives being offered to do otherwise.
I believe that there is a misconception which may lie behind this suggested penalty and accordingly it is my duty to clarify certain matters.
During my stewardship of Rangers no rules were breached or circumvented and I reject and resent any suggestion that anything was done which amounted to cheating.
As was required of a PLC, all accounts were fully audited and made available to all entitled parties. All football rules were complied with. All enquiries from entitled parties or organisations were answered.
To those who criticise certain actions undertaken on behalf of the Club, I suggest that they familiarise themselves with all relevant rules before they come to any conclusions or express any opinions.
This is particularly relevant to the SPL rules where it would appear that there are efforts to retrospectively rewrite laws to incorporate items not previously covered.
The SPL rules variously required disclosure of all contract of service matters and all payments from a club to a player.
It would now appear that these are to be rewritten to incorporate non-contractual loans from independent third parties and other non-contractual matters.
If this is the case then press comment over the past few years would appear to indicate that several clubs other than Rangers may well have fallen foul of the soon to be changed historic laws.
It would also appear that the SPL is once again seeking to invest itself with a power of retrospective penalty beyond that prescribed in its own rules.
Much has been said and written about EBTs.
It should be noted that the tax treatment of these is an issue as yet unresolved and it is wrong to prejudge the outcome.
It must be stressed that the tax tribunal will determine the appropriate tax treatment in respect of the arrangements operated.
This is not a criminal matter and there is presently no question as to the legality of these schemes.
Rangers agreed contracts of employment with its players (and staff). The EBT scheme involved the contribution of funds into an offshore discretionary trust managed by independent trustees.
The trustees could and did make loans to individuals carrying interest with scheduled repayment dates.
There was no contractual or beneficial entitlement to the funds on the part of any individual and the monies paid to EBTs were not “remuneration” in terms of any rules applying to the Club.
Since 2001 when the EBT scheme was introduced, the amounts contributed were disclosed in the audited financial statements of the Club. These audited accounts were provided to the SFA and SPL as required.
As the law stands, it is the right of every taxpayer to minimise his tax liability.
For example, taxpayers are entitled to maximise contributions to pension funds and benefit from the resultant tax allowances. Tax AVOIDANCE is a right. It is tax EVASION which is a crime.
In December 2010, as a result of legislation changes introduced by HMRC, EBTs were rendered tax inefficient. Thereafter the Club made no further contributions to EBTs.
For the avoidance of doubt, many thousands of employees in many areas of business and commerce have benefited from EBTs.
Rangers sought only to provide financial security for players (and staff) within the rules of law and football. To suggest that this amounted to cheating in the sporting context is an allegation which is without any foundation.
I, of course, wish the “new” Rangers every success for the future. I have no doubt that the present generation of players and staff will make a positive and beneficial contribution to the SPL and, in due course, return the Club to a position of pre-eminence in Scottish football.
However, I am determined to support those who served the Club with such dignity and integrity during my stewardship.
“I, of course, wish the “new” Rangers every success for the future.”
You see ya stupid huns, even Minty knows your club is dead.
‘New Rangers’
I expect FF to go into meltdown very soon.
SPF
That statement from Minty moonbeams lacks the classic hallmarks of arrogance to the point where he would basically say –
You lot are a bit thick and don’t know the truth – here is what it really is and you should write this down or remember it as I say it.
Gone is the certainty in his words and instead the obvious deflections and denials are in full swing.
His attack on the SPL rules is in my view desperation and if it was all nonsense why didn’t he sue the Beeb? After all, he does need the money.