To Comply or not to Comply ?

7185
128478

UEFA Club Licensing. – To Comply or not to Comply ?

On 16 April 2018 The UEFA Club Financial Control Body (CFCB) adjudicatory chamber took decisions in the cases of four clubs that had been referred to it by the CFCB chief investigator, concerning the non-fulfilment of the club licensing criteria defined in the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.

Such criteria must be complied with by the clubs in order to be granted the licence required to enter the UEFA club competitions.

The cases of two clubs::

Olympique des Alpes SA (Sion Switzerland )

and

FC Irtysh  (Kazakhstan) 

are of particular interest to those following the events under which the SFA awarded a UEFA License to Rangers FC in 2011 currently under investigation by the SFA Compliance Officer because

  1. The case documentation tell us how UEFA wish national associations to apply UEFA FFP rules
  2. The cases  tell us what might have happened to Rangers  FC in 2012 had they not gone into liquidation and as a consequence avoided the same type of sanctions that UEFA applied to Sion and Irtysh.

 

FC Sion  (Olympique des Alpes SA)

Here we are told how the Swiss FL and then the UEFA CFCB acted in respect of FC Sion in 2017 where a misleading statement was made in the Sion UEFA licensing application.

Full details can be read at

http://tiny.cc/y6sxsy

 

but this is a summary.

In April 2017 the Swiss FL (SFL) granted a licence to Sion FC but indicated that a Disciplinary case was pending.

In July 2017 the CFCB, as part of their licence auditing programme,  carried out a compliance audit on 3 clubs to determine if licences had been properly awarded. Sion was one of those clubs.

The subsequent audit by Deloitte LLP discovered Sion had an overdue payable on a player, amounting to €950,000, owed to another football club (FC Sochaux ) at 31st March 2017 as a result of a transfer undertaken by Sion before 31st December 2016, although the €950,000 was paid in early June 2017.

Deloitte produced a draft report of their findings that was passed to SFL and Sion for comment on factual accuracy and comment on the findings. Sion responded quickly enabling Deloitte to present a final report to the CFCB Investigation Unit. In response to the Deloitte final report Sion stated:

“il apparaît aujourd’hui qu’il existait bel et bien un engagement impayé découlant d’une activité de transfert. Ce point est admis” translated as

“it now appears that there was indeed an outstanding commitment arising from transfer activity. This is admitted”

What emerged as the investigation proceeded was that the Swiss FL Licensing Committee, after granting the license in April and as a result of a Sochaux complaint of non-payment to FIFA, had reason to refer Sion’s application to their Disciplinary Commission in May 2017 with regard to the submission of potentially misleading information by FC Sion to the SFL on 7th April 2017 as part of its licensing documentation.

Sion had declared

“Written confirmation: no overdue payables arising from transfer activities”, signed by the Club’s president, stating that as at 31 March 2017 there were no overdue payables towards other football clubs. In particular, the Club indicated that the case between FC Sion and FC Sochaux regarding the transfer of the player Ishmael Yartey was still under dispute.

The SFL Disciplinary Commission came to the conclusion that FC Sion had no intention to mislead the SFL, but indeed submitted some incorrect licensing documentation; the SFL Disciplinary Commission further confirmed that the total amount of €950,000 had been paid by the Club to FC Sochaux on 7 June 2017. Because of the inaccurate information submitted, the SFL Disciplinary Commission decided to impose a fine of CHF 8,000 on the Club.

Whilst this satisfied the SFL Disciplinary process the CFCB deemed it not enough to justify the granting of the licence as UEFA intended their FFP rules to be applied.

Sion provided the CFCB with a number of reasons on the basis of which no sanction should be imposed. In particular, the Club admitted that there was an overdue payable as at 31 March 2017, but stated that the mistake in the document dated 7 April 2017 was the result of a misinterpretation by the club’s responsible person for dealing with the licence (the “Club’s licence manager”), who is not a lawyer. The Club affirmed that it never had the intention to conceal the information and had provisioned the amount due for payment and that, in any case, it has already been sanctioned by the SFL for providing the wrong information.

The CFCB Investigation Unit accepted that the Sion application, although inaccurate, was a one off misrepresentation and not a forgery, (as in intended to deceive ) but that nevertheless an overdue payable did exist at 31st March and a licence should not have been granted.

Based on their findings, the CFCB Chief Investigator decided to refer the case to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber and suggested a disciplinary measure to be imposed on FC Sion by the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber, such measure consisting of a fine of €235,000, corresponding to the UEFA Revenues the Club gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.

The CFCB Investigatory Chamber submitted that it was  appropriate to impose a fine corresponding to all the UEFA revenues the Club gained by participating in the competition considering the fact that FC Sion should not have been admitted to the competition for failing to meet one of its admission criteria.

 

The Adjudicatory Chambers took all the circumstances (see paras 91 to 120 at http://tiny.cc/i8sxsy ) into consideration and reached the following key decisions.

  1. FC Sion failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 49(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the SFL not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  2. FC Sion breached Articles 13(1) and 43(1)(i) of the CL&FFP Regulations. (Documents complete and correct)
  3. To exclude FC Sion from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next two (2) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19 and 2019/20).
  4. To impose a fine of two hundred and thirty five thousand Euros (€235,000) on FC Sion.
  5. FC Sion is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings.

Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.

It is now public knowledge that an actual liability of tax due before 31stDecember 2010 towards HMRC, was admitted by Rangers FC before 31st March 2011.

This liability was described as “potential” in Rangers Interim accounts audited by Grant Thornton.

“Note 1: The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. A provision for interest of £0.9m has also been included within the interest charge.”

The English Oxford Dictionary definition of potential is:

Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.

Which was not true as the liability had already been “developed” so could not be potential.

This was repeated by Chairman Alistair Johnson in his covering Interim Accounts statement

“The exceptional item reflects a provision for a potential tax liability in relation to a Discounted Option Scheme associated with player contributions between 1999 and 2003. “  where he also added

“Discussions are continuing with HMRC to establish a resolution to the assessments raised.”

This could be taken as disputing the liability but In fact the resolution to the assessments raised would have been payment of the actual liability, something that never happened.

In the Sion case it was accepted the misleading statement was a one off misrepresentation, but at the monitoring stages at June 2011 in Ranger’s case the status of the liability continued to be misrepresented and in September the continuing discussions reason was repeated, along with a claim of an instalment paid whose veracity is highly questionable.

The Swiss FL Licensing Committee did at least refer the case to their Disciplinary Committee when they realised a misleading statement might have been made. The SFA however in August 2011, when Sherriff Officers called at Ibrox for payment of the overdue tax , did no such thing and pulled up the drawbridge for six years, one that the Compliance Officer is now finally charged with lowering.

 


 

The case of FC Irtysh of Kazakhstan is set out in full at http://tiny.cc/y9sxsy  and is a bit more straightforward but is nevertheless useful to compare with events in 2011 in Scotland.

Unlike Rangers FC , FC Irtysh properly disclosed that they had an overdue payable to the Kazakhstan tax authorities at the monitoring point at 30th June 2017. This caused the CFCB Investigatory Unit to seek further information with regard to the position at 31st March

It transpired that Irtysh had declared an overdue payable at 31st March but cited their financial position (awaiting sponsor money) as a reason for non payment to the Kazakhstan FA who accepted it and granted the licence. The outstanding tax was paid in September 2107.

The outcome of the CFCB Investigation was a case put to the CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber  who agreed with the CFCB Investigation Unit that a licence should not have been granted and recommended that Irtysh be fined the equivalent of the UEFA prize money, (that had been withheld in any case whilst CFCB investigated.)

The CFCB Adjudicatory Chamber however decided that a fine was not sufficient in sporting deterrent terms and ruled that:

 

  1.  FC Irtysh failed to satisfy the requirements of Article 50bis(1) of the CL&FFP Regulations and it obtained the licence issued by the FFK not in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  2. To withhold four hundred and forty thousand Euros (€440,000) corresponding to the UEFA revenues FC Irtysh gained by participating in the 2017/2018 UEFA Europa League.
  3. To exclude FC Irtysh from participating in the next UEFA club competition for which it would otherwise qualify in the next three (3) seasons (i.e. the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 seasons). This sanction is deferred for a probationary period of (3) three years. This exclusion must be enforced in case the Club participates again in a UEFA club competition having not fulfilled the licence criteria required to obtain the UEFA licence in accordance with the CL&FFP Regulations.
  4. FC Irtysh is to pay three thousand Euros (€3,000) towards the costs of these proceedings. “

 

The deferral was because unlike Rangers FC,  FC Irtysh had properly disclosed to the licensor the correct & accurate financial information required, so the exclusion was deferred for a probationary period of (3) years.

 

Comment in respect of the award of a UEFA Licence in 2011 to Rangers FC.

From the foregoing it could be deduced that had Rangers FC qualified for the Champions League (or European League) and not gone bust as a result and so not entered liquidation BUT it became public knowledge by 2012 that a licence had been wrongly and possibly fraudulently granted then

  1. Rangers would have been fined the equivalent of their earnings from their participation in the UEFA competitions in 2011
  2. At least a two year ban from UEFA Competitions would have been imposed, but more likely three in view of repeated incorrect statements.
  3. The consequences of both would have been as damaging for Rangers survival as the real life consequences of losing to Malmo and Maribor in the qualifying rounds of the Champions and European Leagues.

Karma eh!

Interestingly in the UEFA COMPLIANCE AND INVESTIGATION ACTIVITY REPORT 2015 – 2017 , the CFCB investigatory chamber recommended that both the Kazakhstan FA and Swiss FA as licensors

“pay particular attention to the adequate disclosure of the outstanding amounts payable towards other football clubs, in respect of employees and towards social/tax authorities, which must be disclosed separately;

Would the same recommendation apply to the Scottish FA with regard to their performance in 2011 and will the  SFA responses thereafter to shareholders in a member club be examined for compliance with best governance practice by the SFA Compliance Officer investigating the processing of the UEFA Licence in 2011?

This would be a welcome step in fully restoring trust in the SFA.

7185 COMMENTS


  1. EASYJAMBO
    MAY 28, 2018 at 19:47
    ===================================

    That method actually makes more sense. How much would you have to have earned in order to receive a payment of £X. Rather than what is the tax on £X.

    In large (in terms of numbers of people) cases HMRC often have a period where if the taxpayer complies with them than they agree not to apply penalties. An amnesty if you will. I just thought that in an instance like this they would not make such an offer. 

    I suppose it’s in the public interest to get it sorted with minimal expense. 

    View Comment

  2. CORRUPT OFFICIALMAY 28, 2018 at 19:56
    1
    0 Rate This
       The players are equally culpable, as HMRC will soon show.      Why would anybody even offer, or ask for, a contractual indemnity, if they thought what was taking place was legal?     OK they may feel hard done to now the indemnifier has ceased to exist, (And it was “The Club” that indemnified the payments), but they could take it to Sevco and ask their opinion. I hear there is a secret document somewhere that may clarify the matter.  
    —————-
    they could take it to Sevco and ask their opinion. I hear there is a secret document somewhere that may clarify the matter.  
    ———–
    Would this contractual indemnity,be a football Debt?
    If it is i heard sevco will pay all outstanding football debt’s
    I hear there is a secret document somewhere that may clarify the matter.

    View Comment

  3. I was always under the impression that each individual employee is responsible for paying the correct amount of tax. My employers once deducted £250 less tax over a year from me than they should have, but HMRC sent me a letter saying it was me who owed it, and asked me how I was going to pay it. My employer certainly wasn’t liable albeit I received an apology from them. 

    I have zero sympathy for any already wealthy individual who takes advice on how to avoid paying their fair share of tax, and the advice turns out to be poor.  Those of us on PAYE don’t get that option – not that we should. 

    In terms of the Rangers players I certainly have zero sympathy. Sadly it probably just means even more of the BBC licence fee will go towards helping the poor souls out. 

    View Comment

  4. UPTHEHOOPSMAY 28, 2018 at 20:09
    I have zero sympathy for any already wealthy individual who takes advice on how to avoid paying their fair share of tax, and the advice turns out to be poor. 
    —————-
    If i remember correctly. one of the things the players were told is that the scheme they are about to embark upon is likely to be challenged in a court of law.
    —–
    Happy to be corrected.

    View Comment

  5. I’m looking at a scan of what purports to be a side letter to Tore Andre Flo dated 23 November 2000. I appreciate that it relates to the Wee Tax Case scheme.

    The letterhead is for “The Rangers Football Club plc”. It further states “Founded 1873”.

    The first line of the letter states that the “Rangers Football Club” will make certain payments under the EBT scheme. It seems logical to deduce that “Rangers Football Club” and “The Rangers Football Club plc” are one and the same.

    The letter continues but adopts use of the shortform “Club” when mentioning the football entity. Again it appears clear that “Rangers Football Club”, “The Rangers Football Club plc” and the “Club” are one and the same.

    An indemnity regarding exposure to UK and Norwegian income tax is given by the “Club”, subject to Mr Flo being required to advise on any “movement of funds” so that the Club can offer advice “to limit exposure under this indemnity”.

    What is not mentioned is a continuing indemnity by any successors to “The Rangers Football Club plc”.

    If the current entity are the same as the old one then surely they are bound by the indemnity?

    If however, as any reasonable person would likely conclude, they are a totally different entity then they are not liable under the previous indemnity to Mr Flo who should now be asking his legal and tax advisors why they did not ensure he was fully covered for what has transpired.

    Scottish Football needs a strong Arbroath.

    View Comment

  6. CLUSTER ONEMAY 28, 2018 at 20:08
        “Would this contractual indemnity,be a football Debt?If it is i heard sevco will pay all outstanding football debt’sI hear there is a secret document somewhere that may clarify the matter.”
       ————————————————————————————
        Fitba’ debt or no C1, It is a debt and outstanding, and the indemnity was deffo offered by “The Club”.  It is in the form of a legally binding document. 
       I imagine some of the sums involved may be pretty eye-watering, and it would be incumbent on the players advisors to ensure the indemnity is honoured. 
        However, if “The Club” has somehow ceased to exist, they are onto plums.
        Maybe BDO will be prepared to add them to the creditors list, but that would be a bit strange, as they are only liquidating a holding company thingy. 

    View Comment

  7. These B……… were ‘earning’ in one week out of 52 weeks what I earned in a year.  40 hours a week.  Not a hobby.

    Then they collude with Murray to not pay their tax.

    What if there is an emergency in their lives?  Call 999.  Oops I haven’t contributed to that service.   B……..rds

    View Comment

  8. I cannot lay claim to having any indepth knowledge of tax, NI nor PAYE, but I do know that if I buy a season ticket at circa £500 (for arguments sake) I don’t qualify for a discount nor relief on my ‘investment’. On average, the true cost of my investment is £500 plus the tax deducted at source by my employer. Somewhere, again on average, in the region of £50 or £60 on top, assuming I’m employed and earn approximately £30k a year (I’ve picked a number which may or may not be representative of the average fan). If ‘I’m’ contributing, then I fully expect the players I’m paying to watch are contributing something similar on a pro-rata basis. As a PAYE fan, which many of us are, it makes simple sense. The more we earn, the more we pay. Beyond this, I cannot see where any debater can justify paying less. We’re supposed to equal amongst our peers. On the one hand there’s a club that annually celebrates our ‘forces’ and their commitment to homeland defence. (I know, I know, playing to the gallery etc). But let’s not celebrate them nor take anything away from them (in the name of football) apart from boots, equipment, supplies and morale. It’s not football and they don’t exclusively belong to ‘them’. On the other hand, there are clubs that quietly go about their business, contributing widely to causes which many of us, thankfully, do not rely upon. And I include every club in this, with no exceptions. I’ll repeat; no exceptions, because they all ‘do good’. So, what’s the ‘other hand’. The other hand, is the blind sided MSSM that have conveniently ignored the facts. The empathetic reports of past players’ bankruptcy and fates that await them at the hand of HMRC. Read the most recent cut and pastes. They’ve conveniently removed all reference to the current Scotland  manager’s failure to ‘pay up’. They’ll pay them for ‘columns’ and media appearances and overlook their financial misdemeanours. Whilst the rest of us pay as we earn. 

    View Comment

  9. But let the BBC employ these tax cheating C..ts all over the place.  Do you know why?

    Because the BBC are the same.   How many of their big names salaried by the corporation?  Yes none. 

    They are all paid off shore in tax avoiding schemes.

    Come on BBC prove me wrong.

    View Comment

  10. JIMBO
    MAY 28, 2018 at 21:13
    =====================================

    Sorry but how do you know this.

    You are accusing the BBC and it’s employees of tax avoidance, what do you base this on. 

    View Comment

  11. REDLICHTIEMAY 28, 2018 at 20:46
    8
    0 Rate This
    I’m looking at a scan of what purports to be a side letter to Tore Andre Flo dated 23 November 2000. I appreciate that it relates to the Wee Tax Case scheme.
    —————
    This may be it?

    View Comment

  12. JustTheFactsMay 28, 2018 at 19:46 
    Whilst we are on the subject of Liquidation and Legal matters pertaining to Clubs and Companies here’s some helpful facts …Incorporation as a Limited CompanyForming or converting your sports club to a Limited Company enables your club to become established as a legal entity in its own right, separate from the individual members. There are two forms of Limited Company:1. Companies with an issued share capital, where ownership and control lies with the shareholders. This form is generally inappropriate for sports clubs.2. Companies limited by guarantee, where the members of the company each guarantee to pay a nominal sum (usually up to £5 each) in the event of the company being unable to meet its obligations. This form is usually used for sports clubs wishing to incorporate as a company.There are several advantages to this structure. Because the club is a distinct legal entity, it is easier for the club to enter into contractual arrangements e.g. to borrow money, own buildings, or stage very large events. The club itself, rather than the individual members, are responsible for the club’s obligations and debts (unless one of the officers has acted negligently or fraudulently, in which case the individualremains personally liable). And the individual members can only be held responsible for the debts and obligations of the club up to the nominal value of their guarantee.The regulation and administration of Limited Companies is more onerous, and there are legal penalties for failure to comply. All Companies require various legal instruments such as a Memorandum and Articles of Association, and these must be registered with Companies House. The annual accounts must be presented in a prescribed form for Companies and also lodged with Companies House where they are open for public inspection. All Companies are subject to the provisions of Company Law; they are run by “Directors”, and some club members may potentially be prohibited from becoming a Director because of their previous involvement with other companies or their financial status.You should consider forming as a Limited Company if one or more of the following apply to your club:You own a high value of assets in the form of buildings, facilities, or financial reserves. However, some clubs have found a significant capital gains tax may be liable if they own considerable assets.You are engaged in selling significant volumes of goods and services to non-members such as training courses, accreditation, equipment, lettings, books and other materials You are planning to organise a major event where there is a potential risk of significant financial loss (in which case, you might consider establishing the event as a limited company owned by your club).Link:https://www.lbhf.gov.uk/sites/default/files/A_Guide_to_Starting_a_Sports_Club_tcm21-149209.pdf
    __________________

    You know, JTF, I’d just love it if a same clubber would come on here and try to argue against that! Of course, unless, that is, there was a third form of limited company, you know the one, the ‘We Are The People’ one!

    View Comment

  13. EASYJAMBOMAY 28, 2018 at 18:56
    A question for you JC. Can you recall the extract that JJ posted about an £500k award against Police Scotland at the High Court in London after DS/DI Robertson was alleged to have unlawfully taken legally privileged documents from solicitors HFW? Did you take a copy of it at the time?
    I was looking for it in relation to the D&P guys current action against the Lord Advocate and Police Scotland. A google search still shows a link to JJ’s site, but the blog appears to have been removed from view. I wonder if he was requested to remove it. The blog was dated 16 October 2106
    I never did manage to locate the judgement online but I am still following up other avenues. I did find an article about the case in “Scottish Legal News” though.

    Is this what you are looking for EJ?
    https://web.archive.org/web/20170225131759/https://johnjamessite.com/2016/10/18/police-scotlands-500000-abuse-of-the-public-purse/

    View Comment

  14. scottc May 28, 2018 at 21:27
    ———————————
    That’s the one. 04  Ideally I’d like to find the full judgement but that will do for starters.

    View Comment

  15. Cluster OneMay 28, 2018 at 21:23
    Attachment
    REDLICHTIEMAY 28, 2018 at 20:46 8 0 Rate This I’m looking at a scan of what purports to be a side letter to Tore Andre Flo dated 23 November 2000. I appreciate that it relates to the Wee Tax Case scheme. ————— This may be it?
    ——————————————————————————————-

    That’s it C1 – thanks.

    RL

    View Comment

  16. Someone asked for something to do with this today…..i think,sorry i don’t have the time to look back,just something i had to remember to look up.so hope it helps.
    (1) THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION LIMITED, a company incorporated in Scotland (registered number SC005453) whose registered office is at Hampden Park, Glasgow G42 9AY (the “SFA”);(2) THE SCOTTISH PREMIER LEAGUE LIMITED, a company incorporated in Scotland (registered number SC175364) whose registered office is at Hampden Park, Glasgow G42 9AY (the “SPL”);(2) THE SCOTTISH FOOTBALL LEAGUE, an unincorporated association acting through its Board having its principal place of business at Hampden Park, Glasgow G42 9EB (the “SFL”);(4) THE RANGERS FOOTBALL CLUB PLC (IN ADMINISTRATION), a company incorporated in Scotland (registered number SC004276) whose registered office is at Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow G51 2XD (“RFC”), acting through the Joint Administrators (defined below); and(5) SEVCO SCOTLAND LIMITED, a company incorporated in Scotland (registered number SC425159) whose registered office is at Ibrox Stadium, 150 Edmiston Drive, Glasgow G51 2XD (“Sevco”).
    ———————
    https://www.sfm.scot/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/164607084-5-Way-Agreement-As-issued-to-all-parties-for-signature-1.pdf

    View Comment

  17. Homunculus

    I’m not saying the players shouldn’t pay the tax and interest. They should . I wouldn’t charge them penalties on top

    I’m not interested in the players in the sense i don’t blame them . I don’t know if you’ve ever seen the documentation for an EBT scheme . The documentation that’s proposed by the financial advisors who sold such schemes

    I have , it’s complex and it’s often extremely challenging for a non trained eye. There was a reason I was able to comment on Rangers EBT use, years before anyone else , on KDS in 2006 . That reason is that “financial advisors “ in the shape of a national firm of accountants tried to get me to adopt it for my business’

    My FD looked at it for a week or so and recommended against . Said it was unlikely to work and even though many employees would have bought in without question he strongly advised against . So we didn’t do it 

    The responsibility was mine and the FD’s to ensure we didn’t do anything that was not in the employees long term interests 
    They trusted us and we weren’t prepared to risk that . Exposure to the workings enabled me to understand that Rangers would have had a huge challenge persuading agents without guarantees, which made it remuneration 

    So whilst , as i said , the players owe tax and interest , this isn’t a case of getting £10K in cash in a brown bag every week . It’s harsh in the extreme to blame the players for not understanding the intricacies of something it took my highly qualified FD a week to fully comprehend 

    Murray though would have fully understood the implications , fully understood the risks . He also had highly qualified people working for him . If anyone had a responsibility to go to HMRC it was him , not the players . Brian Quinn went to HMRC when he inherited Juninho’s EBT . They told him : “ disguised remuneration , tax due “ He instructed Celtic to pay the tax , and that EBT contracts were not available at Celtic

    As an aside , Brian Quinn’s ethical actions made an absolute mockery of LNS decision of No Sporting Advantage as other clubs could also have used EBT’s 
    Brian Quinn had already proven that was false and if Rod McKenzie was even halfway competent he would have used that in his submissions 

    View Comment

  18. BARCABHOY
    MAY 28, 2018 at 22:38
    =============================================

    Again, I totally disagree.

    You are speaking about highly paid professional football players, with agents and advisors, as if they were PAYE employees. That is simply not the case. 

    I say that with not disrespect to people on PAYE, I am one of them. 

    Given the circumstances I outlined earlier the responsible and honest thing to have done would be to have run the scenario past HMRC. If they didn’t do it it’s because they chose not to, for whatever reason. 

    To me the footballers you are defending are just another self employed person deliberately avoiding tax. I see no reason to give them special treatment. 

    View Comment

  19. So whilst , as i said , the players owe tax and interest , this isn’t a case of getting £10K in cash in a brown bag every week . It’s harsh in the extreme to blame the players for not understanding the intricacies of something it took my highly qualified FD a week to fully comprehend 
    lol,here’s 10 grand a week and i will give you £300,000 every 6 months,even a dumb footballer would understand that he is at it,no excuses

    View Comment

  20. Barcabhoy,  I totally respect you on lots of levels.

    But you are missing one thing out. 

    Forget clever accountants.

    Morality.

    We need to pay for our public services.

    View Comment

  21. easyJamboMay 28, 2018 at 21:35
    ‘..That’s the one. Ideally I’d like to find the full judgement …’
    _______________________
    As would I, eJ!

    I haven’t found it in my own ‘archives'( such as they are!),but thought I had found it when I got into the right reference in the ‘court judgments’ pages.

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICEQUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION DIVISIONAL COURTBefore the Right Honourable Lord Justice Gross and the Honourable Mr Justice Mitting(1)HOLMAN FENWICK WILLAN LLP (Duff&Phelps) claimant and (2) CITY OF LONDON MAGISTRATES’ COURT V defendants:

    But all that appeared was this

    http://www.judiciary.gov.ukService Unavailable∨ Technical details ∨∨ Go back to the main page ∨www.judiciary.gov.uk

    Very frustrating!

    View Comment

  22. Homunculus 

    Footballers aren’t self employed , not in any sense. 

    It’s very easy after the event to say they should have run along to HMRC. EBT’s were promoted by HMRC as being a legitimate scheme, as long as operated within the guidelines 

    The responsibility was on the club. How was a player supposed to know Rangers would lie to HMRC when questioned about the scheme ? 

    As far as players were concerned they had a contract with the club and the club deducted tax . The club also gave them written assurances the club would pay ANY and ALL tax due in the event there was a challenge by HMRC

    In those circumstances in my view it’s ridiculous to expect players to run along to HMRC and ask for a ruling 

    View Comment

  23. BARCABHOY
    MAY 28, 2018 at 23:18
    ===============================

    “… run along to HMRC”

    Twice.

    Seriously.

    I thought better of you.

    I’m sure everyone, mods and contributors alike will be relieved to hear I am done.

    To suggest that professional footballers should be treated differently to other tax avoiders is a ludicrous proposition as far as I am concerned.

    I have explained why in my recent posts. I respect everyone else’s right to disagree. 

    View Comment

  24. BarcabhoyMay 28, 2018 at 23:18
    ‘..The club also gave them written assurances the club would pay ANY and ALL tax due in the event there was a challenge by HMRC.’
    _____________
    I would suggest that to even the dimmest player, and certainly to the dimmest agent ( or what are they now called ? intermediary ? or some such) the suggestion that there might be an HMRC challenge would have flagged up something!
    Honest to God!
    Are we to suppose that , for example, the now manager of the national team was so feckin stupid as to believe that he could have all this extra dosh  undisclosed to the taxman, without thinking or sussing that there must be a wee catch in it somewhere?
    They got paid. Their wages were subject to tax. They have not (yet) paid the tax.
    They will now have to do so.
    because as sure as hell the  club that claims to be the club that paid them via EBTs will deny that they are that club!

    View Comment

  25. I’m not suggesting they are treated differently at all

    They owe the tax and the interest . 

    Other taxpayers wouldn’t be charged a penalty for the fraudulent actions of an employer . Players had no control over Rangers response to HMRC. The players were not asked about side letters , the club was . 

    The club , Murray and the board were the guilty parties . Players will either end up seriously out of pocket or bankrupt 

    View Comment

  26. Were all Rangers playing staff paid by ebt or only some? If not all why not? Were they not offered the same arrangement or did they perhaps turn it down in the belief that it wasn’t quite right. I haven’t seen a complete listing of who was paid via ebt and who was not. Did Walter get paid in a conventional manner until his later stint with Everton?

    View Comment

  27. If players at Celtic had been offered the same deal the vast mjority , if not all would have taken it 

    Does that make them worthy of ridicule ? 

    The reason they weren’t offered these deals was because Brian Wuinn and the board ran their business ethically whilst David Murray didn’t 

    Notning at all to do with the players

    View Comment

  28. BarcabhoyMay 28, 2018 at 23:38
    ‘.. Players will either end up seriously out of pocket or bankrupt ‘
    __________
    I refer to my post of 23.36, perhaps posted while you were posting.

    View Comment

  29. gunnerbMay 28, 2018 at 23:39
    ‘..Did Walter get paid in a conventional manner until his later stint with Everton?’
    __________
    Maybe as Sounness did while at the then Rangers:  until his Newcastle days when his player-acquisition service got a good few extra bob for ‘Rangers’ ?
    Or was his EBT payment made in respect of  the scouting  services for ‘Rangers’ …..while he was employed by Newcastle?

    View Comment

  30. HomunculusMay 28, 2018 at 23:29
    ‘..’m sure everyone, mods and contributors alike will be relieved to hear I am done.’
    ______________
    Ach, Homunculus, don’t act the goat!

    What do you mean, ‘I am done’? 

    Unless you are ill or overburdened with other matters, you cannot be excused duty in supporting the fight for the restoration of truth to Scottish Football governance, and the bringing to book of persons who have betrayed their offices, and sundry persons who have cheated the rest of us by not paying their tax, be they knights of the realm or overpaid football players.

    View Comment

  31. Each individual is responsible for ensuring that they have paid the correct tax. Their is no connection between who I as an individual employ to look after my interests and how much tax I pay. 
    If an individual is left with a large tax bill having been reassured that it wouldn’t happen, it’s unfortunate however that tax has to be payed. 
    Does an individual have any comeback? Open for discussion.

    View Comment

  32. In 1995, Sempra established an EBT administered by an Isle of Man trust company to provide benefits and pay bonuses to past, present and future employees and their families
    In 2002, a new structure (the FBT) was put in place to circumvent FA 2003, Sch 24 as it was clear that the EBT no longer achieved its desired effect.
     …. etc etc

    Long story short.
    This is how long this cat and mouse farce has been going on.
    Perhaps now companies and individuals will realise that it AINT WORKING.
    HMRC now have their gloves off and it won’t matter if you are Fantastic Football Entity Club or Roy of the Rovers you will get done.

    View Comment

  33. Cluster One 21.23

    Red Lichtie

    That document of 23 Feb 2011 is one of a number that demonstrate the art and benefits of non disclosure, which apparently is OK as long as it is not deemed dishonest and meets the rules.
    You can read tit and other documents  from the index at
    https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9dnVHSl9OU3RoWm8/view?usp=sharing
    It draws on earlier SFM archives and should refresh memories on dealings between Rangers FC and HMRC in 2011 in relation to the DOS ebts.
    Note that SPL passed the parcel to the SFA in October 2014 who did nothing apart from reject a call from the SPFL last September to investigate if the points made had relevance to the conduct of the LNS Commission.

    View Comment

  34. BarcabhoyMay 29, 2018 at 00:10 (Edit)
    Tony
    I don’t know how many times i have to post that the players should pay the tax and compound interest.
    ===============
    I would imagine that players facing bills will want to  avoid payment or seek compensation if they think they have a case.
    If they entered the deal wanting paid netto and took the risk of buying into the ebt payment method because RFC removed the risk with the indemnities, then it is karma on the Cosmic scale that the indemnities are worthless because the provider could not honour the contract and they have to cough up. If they get penalties too, human nature says  serves the greedy b****s right.
    If however a player can demonstrate that he did question the payment method and was told he had no option but to take an ebt payment (and Waterheuse I think claimed this) then I think those players  have a claim against RFC IL that can be considered by BDO, although the prospect of receiving anything worth claiming is probably a deterrent.
    With regard to SDM, he is guilty of corrupting our game the minute a secret side letter was offered under his stewardship and how he was protected from any charges of bringing the game into disrepute such as Craig Whyte faced, really should be investigated.
    The JPDT should be looking at how the UEFA license was granted in 2011 before UEFA notified at end of May based on the statement provided by Grant Thornton under the SDM regime to the Licensing Committee before CW took over on 6th May.
    The toxicity of SDM’s stewardship of Rangers continues to poison trust in our game to this day. 
     

    View Comment

  35. John Clark May 28, 2018 at 23:14
    easyJamboMay 28, 2018 at 21:35
    ‘..That’s the one. Ideally I’d like to find the full judgement …’
    _______________________
    As would I, eJ!
    ==========================
    I have a copy of an HFW v COLP & others hearing in front of Justices Mitting and Gross dated 7 April 2016. That is available from the Bailli  database. It appears to be a transcript of proceedings and extends to 46 paragraphs.

    However, I’ve just got hold of a paper copy of another transcript with the same parties and date, but extends to 203 paragraphs.  It goes into some detail about the conduct of DS/DI Robertson and the Crown Office, but given the proceedings that are currently in progress it isn’t really for public consumption at this time.

    I’ll try and get something to you in the next few days. 

    View Comment

  36. AULDHEIDMAY 29, 2018 at 00:51
    You can read it and other documents  from the index athttps://drive.google.com/file/d/0B6uWzxhblAt9dnVHSl9OU3RoWm8/view?usp=sharing
    ——————
    Thanks for that,will have a read and catch up on things.

    View Comment

  37. As I have previously said I have zero sympathy for any ex Rangers person who is being chased by HMRC. Particularly because they have always argued there was no sporting advantage. Yet one of the main recipients, who is now having whatever bill he gets part funded by the SFA, said in a documentary the scheme was there to allow Rangers to bring in a level of player to be enable them to compete with Celtic.  

    Sometimes in life you reap what you sow. There are many doing that right now, and I include all those Rangers fans on PAYE who are pathetically saying it was okay for very rich men to unlawfully avoid paying the tax they themselves have no choice but to pay. I also include those Rangers facing politicians who wanted the unpaid tax to be waived to allow Rangers to carry on as normal. Tax paid in full and on time underpins the ruling Government of any given time. Yet we had politicians, including some from the Scottish Government, wanting to introduce an unwritten rule that it depends on who wasn’t paying the tax whether we want action or not. 

    No sympathy with any of them. They should actually be glad it’s only HMRC who want the rules applied. Just imagine the football authorities had wanted the rules applied too! 

    View Comment

  38. Andy Goram lied to a court as far back as 1992 when he stated that his wages were under £1000 per week. If there was nothing dodgy about EBTs, why the need to lie?
    The players knew. 

    View Comment

  39. easyJamboMay 29, 2018 at 01:23
    ‘..I’ve just got hold of a paper copy of another transcript with the same parties and date, ….I’ll try and get something to you in the next few days…’
    __________________
    Thank you: I appreciate it.

    View Comment

  40. HELPUMOOTMAY 29, 2018 at 07:45
    Andy Goram lied to a court as far back as 1992 when he stated that his wages were under £1000 per week. If there was nothing dodgy about EBTs, why the need to lie?The players knew.
    ……………………………………………..
    Of course, the players knew. 

    This blog discusses it ad nauseum, ad finitum… And we’re circling around it once again.

    If I were an ex-player with the benefit of an EBT from the DEID club, then naturally I would argue forcibly and publically that the very concept of it being a new club is ludicrous… farcical!

    “There is only one club – The Glasgow Rangers – guarantors for any tax liability that may potentially drop into my lap. Same club, same money tree. I will defy to my death… ad mortem, anyone who would suggest otherwise.”

    We can marginally empathise with the “poor”, deluded ex-employees, however that doesn’t explain why there are so many other apologists for the fantasy.

    View Comment

  41. BARCABHOY. Would it be fair to assume that the player and/or agent would know that the trust payments were being made as a consequence of the player agreeing to play football for the team, rather than as some measure of largesse by those accepting the agreement? Would it be fair to assume that the player and/or agent would know that the SPL expected to be made aware of all payments made as a consequence of playing for the team? If so, would it not be fair to assume that it must have at least raised a query in their mind that the payments were not being disclosed to the SPL, irrespective of whether or not they were being disclosed to HMRC?

    View Comment

  42. AuldheidMay 29, 2018 at 01:22
    ‘..The toxicity of SDM’s stewardship of Rangers continues to poison trust in our game to this day. ‘
    _______________________
    SDM as a wretchedly overambitious, greedy and vain individual businessman is one thing: there are many like him. And they all go down to their graves as wretched and despised chancers.

    The individuals serving on the Governance body of a sport are something else.
    They are in a position of trust on behalf of all us who look for honesty and integrity in sport.

    Their failure to deal openly and honesty with cheats makes them far more guilty than the individual little turds, be they knights of the realm or football club managers or unprincipled pressmen, who try to work a flanker on the rest of us.

    The toxin released by SDM is in the very bloodstream of Scottish Football: I doubt if it will ever be wholly purged.
    But we will continue to insist that every effort be made to get back to truth and honesty.

    View Comment

Comments are closed.