06-11-2015, 15:10
So may inaccuracy’s over last 3 days mostly coming from Rangers fans funnily
Freds first
“The debt was 27 million Fred How much was Hearts?”
Rangers full debt figure as per the bdo report was 140m
Taking off the tickitus amount still leaves over 110 million
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/revealed-the-276-victims-owed-cash-1118614
now trus
o dear lots
first “Lord Nimmo Smith's independent enquiry found there was no sporting advantage. That's the end of it.”
Correct LNS did say this but you have conveniently forgot/ignored/denied the preface to that with the statement “as they (EBTs) are legal, therefor available to all clubs there was no sporting advantage”. Now we know this was incorrect, and NO club could legally use the; therefor an advantage was obtained.
Second
“There's no evidence to support the idea that Rangers couldn't have afforded those players without using EBTs”
Rangers where a loss making organisation that from 2008 the bank ran trying to cut losses the extra 3 or 4 million per annum paying players the same take home would not have been allowed simple. So Rangers simply could not afford it MIH was in dire financial straits at this time so balance transfers would not be allowed.
Third
“And let's not forget that using EBTs wasn't illegal. It was a tax avoidance scheme, not tax evasion”
Ok the obvious fact that they have been deemed illegal on Wednesday as per the laws of the time. That HMRC have always considered them to be “an artificial construct” so tax evasion.
That other companies have been done long before rangers. So we have a legal definition that they were tax EVASION
Charles & others
“The totals over a 10 year period only amounted to 47m and this included a number of non-playing staff including Murray himself, so I would guess that the "sporting" aspect of this only amounted to 2-3m per season anyway and that is hardly likely to be enough to provide a sporting advantage to the degree that some are claiming”
Lets take the 2.5 million paid out as a figure to clear 2.5 million a 40 % tax payers would have to earn over 5 million a year
I will explain each one pays 40% tax and 12% national insurance so only take home 48% of their top line or 5.2 million. At times during the period ta higher rate of tax was imposed of 45 % so it could have been even higher
On top of that the company has to pay 13.8% national insurance or another 720k
So we have a grand total of 5.92 million, a huge amount to a company losing money and around 20 to 25% of the total wages of the club at the time. So sorry Charles that’s a huge advantage.
El Car
“The balance sheet debt was being paid down, reducing by about £1m a year”
Ahh the Paul Murray lie, sorry but Rangers audited full accounts show that in the final 4 years of David Murrays ownership NET debt actually went up from 27.5 million in the 07 accounts to 32.8m in the final accounts 2011
I suggest you actually read the accounts before making a statement like that.
Yes bank debt was going down other debt was going up.
So the facts contradict almost all defences against stripping titles.
Apart from the obvious you cant do it to us cause we are the people
Freds first
“The debt was 27 million Fred How much was Hearts?”
Rangers full debt figure as per the bdo report was 140m
Taking off the tickitus amount still leaves over 110 million
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/revealed-the-276-victims-owed-cash-1118614
now trus
o dear lots
first “Lord Nimmo Smith's independent enquiry found there was no sporting advantage. That's the end of it.”
Correct LNS did say this but you have conveniently forgot/ignored/denied the preface to that with the statement “as they (EBTs) are legal, therefor available to all clubs there was no sporting advantage”. Now we know this was incorrect, and NO club could legally use the; therefor an advantage was obtained.
Second
“There's no evidence to support the idea that Rangers couldn't have afforded those players without using EBTs”
Rangers where a loss making organisation that from 2008 the bank ran trying to cut losses the extra 3 or 4 million per annum paying players the same take home would not have been allowed simple. So Rangers simply could not afford it MIH was in dire financial straits at this time so balance transfers would not be allowed.
Third
“And let's not forget that using EBTs wasn't illegal. It was a tax avoidance scheme, not tax evasion”
Ok the obvious fact that they have been deemed illegal on Wednesday as per the laws of the time. That HMRC have always considered them to be “an artificial construct” so tax evasion.
That other companies have been done long before rangers. So we have a legal definition that they were tax EVASION
Charles & others
“The totals over a 10 year period only amounted to 47m and this included a number of non-playing staff including Murray himself, so I would guess that the "sporting" aspect of this only amounted to 2-3m per season anyway and that is hardly likely to be enough to provide a sporting advantage to the degree that some are claiming”
Lets take the 2.5 million paid out as a figure to clear 2.5 million a 40 % tax payers would have to earn over 5 million a year
I will explain each one pays 40% tax and 12% national insurance so only take home 48% of their top line or 5.2 million. At times during the period ta higher rate of tax was imposed of 45 % so it could have been even higher
On top of that the company has to pay 13.8% national insurance or another 720k
So we have a grand total of 5.92 million, a huge amount to a company losing money and around 20 to 25% of the total wages of the club at the time. So sorry Charles that’s a huge advantage.
El Car
“The balance sheet debt was being paid down, reducing by about £1m a year”
Ahh the Paul Murray lie, sorry but Rangers audited full accounts show that in the final 4 years of David Murrays ownership NET debt actually went up from 27.5 million in the 07 accounts to 32.8m in the final accounts 2011
I suggest you actually read the accounts before making a statement like that.
Yes bank debt was going down other debt was going up.
So the facts contradict almost all defences against stripping titles.
Apart from the obvious you cant do it to us cause we are the people