Jump to content



You are viewing the Archive Board. To visit the new board CLICK HERE


Photo

The Rangers Circus Continues


  • Please log in to reply
344 replies to this topic

#301 bruce778

bruce778
  • Member
  • 1,674 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 08:54 AM

We shall see. It is to be heard outside of Scotland this time. The fact a scottish judge could rule that rangers gained no competitive advantage from ebt's shows how wrong they can get it from within the country.

What was the competitive advantage?

#302 Maq

Maq
  • Member
  • 2,186 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 09:00 AM

What was the competitive advantage?

 

fielding players they couldn't afford to play? they they only provided 'loans' to, rather than wages? Not registering players properly - therefore fielding teams in matches that had good players in it, who shouldn't have been playing as they weren't properly registered?

 

Those kind of things


Wise men come from the East - cowboys come from the West

#303 bruce778

bruce778
  • Member
  • 1,674 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 09:03 AM

 
fielding players they couldn't afford to play? they they only provided 'loans' to, rather than wages? Not registering players properly - therefore fielding teams in matches that had good players in it, who shouldn't have been playing as they weren't properly registered?
 
Those kind of things

As it stands rangers could afford those players because ebts were not illegal. If the payments had been registered, there would have been no issue.

It was recognised that there was no practical competitive advantage, which is true.

Edited by bruce778, 28 August 2014 - 09:03 AM.


#304 Maq

Maq
  • Member
  • 2,186 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 09:23 AM

As it stands rangers could afford those players because ebts were not illegal. If the payments had been registered, there would have been no issue.

It was recognised that there was no practical competitive advantage, which is true.

 

As it stands, they could? Why didn't they at the time?

 

"Could"  "If"  baws.


Wise men come from the East - cowboys come from the West

#305 Langtonian

Langtonian
  • Member
  • 1,939 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 09:27 AM

As it stands rangers could afford those players because ebts were not illegal. If the payments had been registered, there would have been no issue.

It was recognised that there was no practical competitive advantage, which is true.

 

they couldn,t afford those high profle players hence the use of ebt,s



#306 ShedTA

ShedTA
  • Member
  • 3,624 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 09:34 AM

 

When did Edinburgh become somewhere outside of Scotland?

 

ah, is it to be edinburgh? my mistake. oh well its in the bag for you then.



#307 ShedTA

ShedTA
  • Member
  • 3,624 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 09:38 AM

 

they couldn,t afford those high profle players hence the use of ebt,s

 

Ah yes but using a dodgy loan system to avoid paying tax and not declaring this as wages so you can sign expensive players that you cant afford to pay direct taxable wages to offers no sporting advantage.



#308 Debian

Debian
  • Member
  • 544 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 09:42 AM

When are HMRC going to employ the Celtic lawyers?

#309 bruce778

bruce778
  • Member
  • 1,674 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 11:11 AM

 
Ah yes but using a dodgy loan system to avoid paying tax and not declaring this as wages so you can sign expensive players that you cant afford to pay direct taxable wages to offers no sporting advantage.

Companies all over the world employ tax avoidance schemes. It's the way company law is set up. Directors are primarily obliged to act in the best interests of their company. That includes minimising tax liability.

It's not an issue that many people should get on their high horse about because it's so prevalent. I expect many spl clubs have operated tax avoidance schemes. The main culprits are government for not changing the company law set up. Having said that, I think the scheme oldco operated was foolishly risky, hence the legal issues now encountered.

But so long as a court says payments weren't illegal and therefore no debt is owed to the tax man, I don't see how rangers couldn't afford the players so got a competitive advantage. The registration issue is also a massive red herring because registering the payments would have made no difference to rangers on the pitch so I don't buy the competitive advantage argument and neither did lord nimmo smith and two QCs.

#310 JPM

JPM
  • Member
  • 3,436 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 11:42 AM

But so long as a court says payments weren't illegal and therefore no debt is owed to the tax man

But that's not what they've said is it? As of now they've said the club made loans to the players and staff, which will be taxable as income unless repaid.

In some ways I would like hmrc to lose their argument that the payments were compensation, just to see the tax bailiffs show up at Bazza and Murray's door, as well as 50 others.

Edited by JPM, 28 August 2014 - 11:42 AM.


#311 Pool Q

Pool Q
  • Member
  • 3,425 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 11:43 AM

Company law is not set up in such a way that Directors should indulge in aggressive tax avoidance schemes (to quote Osborne) that are palpably designed simply to evade tax that should, under any reasonable interpretation, be paid, and that will inevitably be challenged by the tax authorities, involving the business in lengthy and costly legal proceedings, having its’ name dragged through the mire, and ultimately threaten the existence of the business. Directors are supposed to show judgement, something those at Rangers completely failed to do, company law does not force them to enter in ridiculous schemes like the EBTs.
8 bars on the piano

#312 bruce778

bruce778
  • Member
  • 1,674 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 11:51 AM

Company law is not set up in such a way that Directors should indulge in aggressive tax avoidance schemes (to quote Osborne) that are palpably designed simply to evade tax that should, under any reasonable interpretation, be paid, and that will inevitably be challenged by the tax authorities, involving the business in lengthy and costly legal proceedings, having its name dragged through the mire, and ultimately threaten the existence of the business. Directors are supposed to show judgement, something those at Rangers completely failed to do, company law does not force them to enter in ridiculous schemes like the EBTs.

That's exactly what I said in my post. The rangers scheme was foolishly risky. My point is that it is one tax avoidance mechanism that has clearly been highlighted for obvious reasons. There will be and will have been countless others operated by football clubs, unfortunately.

There are companies far bigger than oldco that have been dragged through the courts by tax authorities and lost. The system is designed to prioritise all efforts to reward one class of person - shareholders.

Edited by bruce778, 28 August 2014 - 11:54 AM.


#313 sbcmfc

sbcmfc
  • Member
  • 7,477 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 12:01 PM

The registration issue is also a massive red herring because registering the payments would have made no difference to rangers on the pitch so I don't buy the competitive advantage argument and neither did lord nimmo smith and two QCs.


Tell that to Legia Warsaw!
:lol:
I want to do a poo at Paul's!!

#314 Pool Q

Pool Q
  • Member
  • 3,425 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 03:33 PM

That's exactly what I said in my post. The rangers scheme was foolishly risky. My point is that it is one tax avoidance mechanism that has clearly been highlighted for obvious reasons. There will be and will have been countless others operated by football clubs, unfortunately.

There are companies far bigger than oldco that have been dragged through the courts by tax authorities and lost. The system is designed to prioritise all efforts to reward one class of person - shareholders.

Granted all companies have a duty to minimise their tax liability using any reasonable mechanisms available to them, reasonable being the operative word. At the extreme, unreasonable, end of the scale some aggressive tax avoidance is just tax evasion by another name. That’s where Rangers (and some others down south) chose to operate, enjoying the financial benefits and no doubt congratulating themselves on how clever they were being. I’m not aware of anything remotely comparable being operated in Scottish football, maybe you are. Rangers weren’t just unlucky to ‘get caught’ (as you say as it stands EBTs are legal), nor have they been singled out unfairly, they tried it on with something any competent company wouldn’t have touched with a barge pole. And people are perfectly entitled, right in my view, to be contemptuous of any business that utilises tax avoidance schemes such as EBTs.
8 bars on the piano

#315 Larky Masher

Larky Masher
  • Member
  • 7,779 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 03:59 PM

Granted all companies have a duty to minimise their tax liability using any reasonable mechanisms available to them, reasonable being the operative word. At the extreme, unreasonable, end of the scale some aggressive tax avoidance is just tax evasion by another name. That’s where Rangers (and some others down south) chose to operate, enjoying the financial benefits and no doubt congratulating themselves on how clever they were being. I’m not aware of anything remotely comparable being operated in Scottish football, maybe you are. Rangers weren’t just unlucky to ‘get caught’ (as you say as it stands EBTs are legal), nor have they been singled out unfairly, they tried it on with something any competent company wouldn’t have touched with a barge pole. And people are perfectly entitled, right in my view, to be contemptuous of any business that utilises tax avoidance schemes such as EBTs.

 

 

Well based on the recent revelations at Livingston it would appear that the "old cash in a paper bag" tax avoidance scheme is still alive and well in Scotland.


Zombie company: A company that is kept alive by lenient creditors and low interest rates even though it is too weak to invest or

expand e.g. Aberdeen F.C. "Available from lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=zombie company" [3-November-2013]