07 Jul 2017 16:31:34
I was speaking to my brother yesterday regarding the EBT saga and he made a good comparison. He said:

"It's like reducing the speed limit on a stretch of road and then trying to punish every driver who previously observed the old speed limit. "

He's totally right too. No criminality was involved. Rangers were simply using a loophole that existed at the time.


1.) 07 Jul 2017
07 Jul 2017 16:50:36
the government introduced the EBT as a legal way of reducing the tax you pay kinda similar to an ISA

then it realised oh wait too many people are benefitting from it so let's do a u-turn

right if you used our EBT scheme you were illegally dodging tax so we want all the tax bank

and we end up getting liquidated and now they want our titles stripped

you cldnt make it up


2.) 07 Jul 2017
07 Jul 2017 17:36:57
To be completely honest guys. That's not the case. EBT's are and remain legal but it was the operation of the scheme by Rangers during the time which was incorrect.

I'm 2004 HMRC asked Rangers if there were any side letters and we said no. The Boumsong raid in 2008 found these letters which showed the payments were actually earnings which is why the Supreme Court ruled in favour of HMRC.

That being said, I don't buy into the whole competitive advantage argument as who is to say we wouldn't have just paid the additional amounts if we didn't operate the scheme?


3.) 07 Jul 2017
07 Jul 2017 17:42:42
Good statement by the chairman on website explaining position fully. Thank you DK.


4.) 07 Jul 2017
07 Jul 2017 20:47:17
big bear Davic murray said at recent trial they operated scheme to get in players they otherwise couldn't afford.


5.) 08 Jul 2017
07 Jul 2017 23:38:00
No he said may not, and I highly doubt we couldn't have got them anyway.


6.) 08 Jul 2017
08 Jul 2017 00:08:52
There was no loophole. EBT were supposed to be loans. In SDMs case the loans were never meant to be repaid, so outwith the rules of EBTs.
If the there was no criminality and everything was above board why was SDM not upfront about the use of EBTs to the football authorities. Instead he buried them from sight.


7.) 08 Jul 2017
08 Jul 2017 05:27:22
STYAB, it was HMRC themselves who said Rangers were not involved in any criminality.


8.) 08 Jul 2017
08 Jul 2017 07:52:45
No but broke the rules of the SFA by having undeclared contracts


9.) 08 Jul 2017
08 Jul 2017 08:34:52
My understanding is that EBT's were included in accounts submitted to SPL each year and side-letters only referred to repayment of these. If so, what are the undeclared contracts?
Therefore if I am correct, what SPL or SFA rule are we accused of breaking?


10.) 08 Jul 2017
08 Jul 2017 15:24:19
Make your mind up, STYAB. Is it criminality or undeclared contracts? Stop changing your argument to suit your agenda.