87 replies to this topic

[Billy Bhoy]

idontbelieveit, on 29 February 2012 - 11:02 AM, said:

Sorry, I did not realise this was a school lesson forum. You got the message and you came off second best. You should be used to that by now. I'm sure you're not a complete idiot. Some parts are sure to be missing.

Using MS Word to correct your spelling and grammar mistakes now I see?

Incidentally what was your message? That the SFA should be run along military guidelines(makes sense, I suppose the old firm is part of the 'war on terror' after all,) or that the same individual members of the forces conduct the court-martial's in to their own behaviour (and that it should be run along military guidelines).

Whatever you clearly put me in my place with your erudite arguments, flawless logic and restraint from descending in to using stereotypes and petty insults. I'm sure anyone reading (apart from not giving a fuck) is glad you pointed out your decisive em ....... victory as they wouldn't have noticed otherwise.

Seriously, "came off second best" on an internet forum, you must be about 14.

[idontbelieveit]

Billy Bhoy, on 29 February 2012 - 08:25 PM, said:

Using MS Word to correct your spelling and grammar mistakes now I see?

Incidentally what was your message? That the SFA should be run along military guidelines(makes sense, I suppose the old firm is part of the 'war on terror' after all,) or that the same individual members of the forces conduct the court-martial's in to their own behaviour (and that it should be run along military guidelines).

Whatever you clearly put me in my place with your erudite arguments, flawless logic and restraint from descending in to using stereotypes and petty insults. I'm sure anyone reading (apart from not giving a fuck) is glad you pointed out your decisive em ....... victory as they wouldn't have noticed otherwise.

Seriously, "came off second best" on an internet forum, you must be about 14.

Sober up FFS. Get your self to confessions, it's not just for cleansing the soul, the priest will listen to your problems, and piss himself latter.
I'm glad you think I'm a scholar, but I was not offering any arguments. If it's my opinion of you that you don't like you could always improve.
As for MS Word. I was not aware this post window had a spell checker.
Personally I can't bear fools, but your mother obviously could.

[Grumpy Old Man]

An article in the Mail online regarding the possibility that Rangers failed to properly register players.

Quote

Rangers stand accused of failing to properly register players after a former director revealed secretive payments had been consistently excluded from contracts lodged with the SFA.

The embattled Ibrox club are awaiting the outcome of the First Tier Tax Tribunal which will determine the legality or otherwise of Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs).

Regardless of whether Rangers are hit with an additional bill of £49million from the so-called 'big tax case', it appears such payments were kept 'off the books' - in direct contravention of SFA registration rules.

Former Ibrox director Hugh Adam, who had a 30-year association with the club until 2002, has told Sportsmail that the club's directors were aware of the arrangement - one he believes could have started as early as the mid-1990s.

'They weren't included in the contracts. They definitely weren't. That was the whole point of them,' he said. 'If they'd been included in the contracts, they would have had to have paid tax on them.

'I don't think a lot of the other directors knew an awful lot about it. David Murray kept everything to himself.

'The directors just wanted to sit in the directors' box. That's all. When I was on the board, I knew all about them.

'I just didn't know the details of them. They became accepted. 'The revenue were seriously challenging them at that point when I was a director.

'People never really asked serious questions about them. "It's perfectly legal" was what they thought.

'It wasn't happening in Britain, so had nothing to do with Britain. All the directors heard about them but didn't take them seriously because they didn't appear in the books.'

Adam's revelation suggests a clear breach of the SFA rulebook - and is a potential embarrassment to current SFA president Campbell Ogilvie, who had a 27-year association with Rangers, many of them spent as secretary.

The SFA rule on registration states: 'All payments made to a player relating to his playing activities must be clearly recorded upon the relevant contract and/or agreement.

'No payment for his playing activities may be made to the player through a third party.'

Adam, the man who funded the redevelopment of Ibrox through Rangers pools, believes payments into discretionary trusts may have gone on well before the turn of the millennium.

It's understood the 'big tax case' relates to EBT payments from 2000 until 2009 but, when questioned if he heard of similar payments in the mid- 1990s, Adam confirmed: 'Without having any specialist knowledge, I'm pretty sure.

'People didn't want to know about them. There was a lot of that (EBTs) going on at the time (I was there).

'You knew it was cheating but some of them not only hoped but believed it was above board. 'It's this thing that when something happens it has to have a beginning and an end, but that wasn't the case with the overseas things.

'It was just something that crept up. It was considered important but not crucial. The fans didn't give a damn one way or another. You could argue that they knew about it but didn't think it was important.

'Maybe they never thought it was as much as it really was. And maybe it wasn't. I don't know if you remember radio stations from ships.

'I don't think they were making a fortune but they weren't costing a lot of money, so no one bothered.

'When I was asked for my opinion on the way the club had been run, I said it was quite obvious how it had got into trouble.'They were doing things they shouldn't have been doing.

'They (EBTs) were always regarded in my time as a bit of a joke. They were getting away with it but nobody really thought they'd get away wi th i t forever. '

It would be an offshore trust - almost like a boat. You could dodge your taxes that way. It wasn't something that you picked up the paper and read about. It was one at a time then grew on a gradual basis.

'The players were very naive. Few of them were the Brain of Britain, of course. If they get the money, they don't give a damn where it's coming from.'

Read more:

http://www.dailymail...l#ixzz1nwXTcmJi

Edited by Grumpy Old Man, 02 March 2012 - 07:47 AM.

[Grumpy Old Man]

The SFA have confirmed that they will investigate the claims made by Hugh Adam.

Quote

http://sport.stv.tv/...gers-contracts/

The Scottish Football Association has confirmed that it will be investigating allegations made about players at Rangers having "hidden" contracts.

Former Rangers director Hugh Adam told the Daily Mail that he had been aware of playing staff at Ibrox having more than one contract for payment but that some paperwork had not been submitted to the SFA.

The governing body's rules state that they must be given copies of all paperwork relating to player payment.

The SFA has now said that it will investigate the allegations and that it is close to completing its initial inquiry into Rangers.

In a statement, chief executive Stewart Regan said: "We are now in the final stages of our independent inquiry into the situation concerning Rangers FC. The report by The Right Honourable Lord Nimmo Smith is expected to be completed next week and will go to a Special Board Meeting for consideration.

"It would be inappropriate to make any further comment at this stage in relation to the details gleaned from the inquiry, the potential contents of the report or any possible sanctions.

"We are, however, aware of the most recent allegations made against Rangers FC today by a former director of the club. We shall investigate this matter thoroughly before making any further comment."

[Grumpy Old Man]

Murray denies that there were double contracts handed out at the club.

Quote

http://www.dailyreco..._medium=twitter

DAVID Murray yesterday poured scorn on accusations Rangers handed out double contracts to players to cover up untaxed payments.

He was speaking out for the first time since handing the Ibrox club over to Craig Whyte and admitted it was a “huge mistake”.

Murray apologised for letting Whyte get his hands on the club he’d fronted for most of the 23 years he was owner and admitted the decision will probably haunt him for years to come.

He said: “I’ll regret this for the rest of my life but I know Rangers will survive because of the fans. This club will prosper again.”

As for reports Rangers used double contracts to conceal payments to players – the stories were based on information supplied by former Ibrox director Hugh Adam – Murray dismissed them as fantasy.

According to Mike McGill, one of the former chairman’s right-hand men at the Murray Group, Adam had resigned as a director towards the end of 2000, a year before the EBT scheme was introduced.

Murray doesn’t see how Adam could have known anything about contracts but McGill said: “The club used an old offshore EBT scheme in 1999 with three players.

“That scheme is the subject of the small tax case. The Revenue provided some information to us in early 2011 and we conceded (the £2.8m) based on that information and provided for payment in the club accounts. Whyte did not pay it.

“The other scheme was started in 2001 and the larger scheme involves a payment into an offshore trust. But there is no contractual entitlement on the part of the players. That is key to the defence and key to the allegations made by the SFA.”

Murray added: “Hugh didn’t know. He wanted to buy Rangers at the time I had the club. He did a great job in running the pools but he became a bit anti-me.

“I’ve looked through every year to check my facts and there were no double contracts. Categorically, there were no dual contracts.”

When asked if he now regrets the use of EBT schemes McGill said: “We’ve probably said more than we should have on EBTs.

“The tribunal judges are about to make a decision and I do not want to be seen to be influencing either way but what I would say is this: We went through 10 AGMs. We signed off accounts by Grant Thornton and the remuneration trust was always mentioned in the account. It was never hidden.”

Murray felt he had to give his version because of the pressure and criticism building around him as administrators struggle to keep Rangers going. Also, whether or not he likes it, he must accept responsibility for his part in the club’s downfall.

He says he does and added: “I’ve been at crossroads in my life before and I passed through them.”

It was a poignant statement because it was 36 years ago to the day yesterday that he lost both legs in a car crash so he isn’t easily unnerved although he does wish he’d never sold to Whyte.

He said: “Again, I apologise and if I could turn the clock back, of course I would.

“You know when it really hit home for me? I care about the club passionately or I wouldn’t have done it as long but the day he (Whyte) sold the Arsenal shares?

“There are bits that belong to the history of a club. I said to Mike, ‘Does he realise what he’s actually done?’ That was a raw nerve, to have done that premeditated. Any sympathy he may have had just gone out the window then.”

When asked what he’d say if he met Whyte again, Murray said: “I don’t think we want to go there – I don’t expect many of us will see him again.”

Yet shouldn’t alarm bells have been clanging sooner, when Alastair Johnston, the chairman at the time of the takeover, was saying Whyte was not the right person to own the club? No one, he insists, provided evidence to substantiate the rumours.

He also said he couldn’t take Paul Murray’s late bid because it didn’t tick enough boxes.

He said: “I understand Paul was keen to get the club and I have nothing but respect for him. He wants only the best for the club.

“But Paul was not able at that time to give us an offer that was satisfactory for many, many reasons. He wanted debt left in and the tax case put to one side.

“Looking at the offer document that went out to shareholders, to buy the club, to invest, in theory Whyte’s was the right deal to do.

“Looking back it wasn’t and I can only apologise so many times. I wish I’d never done the deal with Craig Whyte.”

It has always been suggested the club’s bankers, Lloyds, who are also the Murray Group’s bank, put the squeeze on Murray to offload Rangers to Whyte but Murray said: “No. The bank wanted their money back, of course, and I’d made it clear I wanted out of Rangers.

“We were going into recession and people weren’t queueing up to buy football clubs. But if we’d known of the Ticketus thing we would not have done the deal.”

But surely Murray’s own due diligence should have been more thorough?

“That’s easy to say now but we did the necessary,” he said, before McGill stepped in again adding: “We had a number of characters who came forward to try to buy the club. That included one fraudulently procured proof-of-funds letter from a reputable bank. It included other parties who claimed to have funds but did not.

“What Craig Whyte had that the others did not was the backing of a reputable legal firm. The fact he was clearing money into their clients’ account and the fact they confirmed they had sufficient funds to do the transaction that was being negotiated, goes a long way to being positive confirmation.”

Now, of course, the fans know Whyte was not a fit and proper person to own their club and there are many who believe Rangers would be better off in liquidation.

They reckon it would be cheaper and easier to deal with creditors but Murray doesn’t agree.

Re-emerging as a newco isn’t what he’d like to see and he said: “That’s not in the best interests of the game or Rangers. A CVA would be preferable.

“But Scottish football isn’t seen as a great investment. If you’re not a Rangers fan you want to kick Rangers – and I understand that.

“But without Rangers the game would be much worse off.”

[johnarob]

so who's lying, murray or adams?

"anti-me".....seems like murray may think adams is bitter about not getting the club for himself

[Grumpy Old Man]

johnarob, on 14 March 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

so who's lying, murray or adams?

"anti-me".....seems like murray may think adams is bitter about not getting the club for himself

Did the Sun not publish evidence of the dual contracts in the first edition? If they did and Murray is telling the truth would this suggest that the paper fabricated the evidence. Now with the News International's past record with the phone hacking scandal nothing would surprise me but would they be stupid enough to try it in the edition that they launched to replace the disgraced NOTW.

[johnarob]

Grumpy Old Man, on 14 March 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

Did the Sun not publish evidence of the dual contracts in the first edition? If they did and Murray is telling the truth would this suggest that the paper fabricated the evidence. Now with the News International's past record with the phone hacking scandal nothing would surprise me but would they be stupid enough to try it in the edition that they launched to replace the disgraced NOTW.

i didnt get the paper GOM but i did see pics of alleged contracts......and i agree that nothing is beyond the hacks behind that paper but it would be criminal stupidity if they had fabricated the story...and as yet we've had no indication that murray will "sue" the paper