D Murray Rubbishes The 2 Contracts Allegations

[calscot 0]

Yes it was Darrell King who said he had seen them, but I'm sure he has since denied seeing two contracts.

 

I thought rather than a contract, it was a letter to the player implying that the player would be entitled to the money which could possibly be construed as a kind of contract.

[calscot 0]

I doubt Murray is lying- he probably believes what he says.

 

However if he's proven wrong, he will just blame someone else as per usual.

 

Looking at it, if he is wrong, I would say someone else IS to blame. He is only complicit in taking the risk.

[BlueMazza 0]

I thought rather than a contract, it was a letter to the player implying that the player would be entitled to the money which could possibly be construed as a kind of contract.

 

Yes actually you're right, some sort of letter. However being construed as a contract addendum (a legal letter added to contract) and actually being one - or even being in existence - is the key.

[Frankie 8,224]

Looking at it, if he is wrong, I would say someone else IS to blame. He is only complicit in taking the risk.

 

Murray continually described himself as the club's custodian.

 

Such people don't take risks with the club's fiscal well being. He's to blame as he made the final decision on all these issues.

[Frankie 8,224]

Looking at it, if he is wrong, I would say someone else IS to blame. He is only complicit in taking the risk.

 

Murray continually described himself as the club's custodian.

 

Such people don't take risks with the club's fiscal well being. He's to blame as he made the final decision on all these issues.

[calscot 0]

We may be arguing semantics: you need to take responsibility for decisions, I think that's different from "blame".

 

We all make decisions based on trusted advice: if someone convinces you to take their advice and it turns out to be crap, it's natural to blame them.

[Bluedell 5,408]

Yes it was Darrell King who said he had seen them, but I'm sure he has since denied seeing two contracts.

 

King said that it was commonplace for players to have 2 contracts, with the second one relating to image rights.

 

Can't see where he could be lying. What he's said is the truth. You can't do an EBT at all if it's contractual and the trusts were mentioned every year in the accounts. The auditors did sign off every year.

 

That's the facts of the case.

 

The fact that the auditors signed off on it every year does not imply that any tax avoidance scheme is water-tight or that they have looked at each player's contracts and were happy that the EBTs were completely discretionary.

 

I had thought that the whole issue about our EBTs was that they were not discretionary. if that's not the issue then do you know what the premise of HMRCs argument is?

 

I thought rather than a contract, it was a letter to the player implying that the player would be entitled to the money which could possibly be construed as a kind of contract.

 

Sounds like the letter (if it exists) would be a contract. if that was the case then Murray would be lying?

 

We may be arguing semantics:

 

You? Surely not.

[ascender 352]

The only letter that's been made public is the one that the Sun published a few weeks back.

 

The thing about this story and the one about player registrations is that elements of them require numerous people to turn a blind eye to them (for whatever reason) from our club officials, the sfa, players and their agents. Can that really have been going on for so long if we were doing things wrongly or if there was a risk that individuals could end up being financially penalised?

 

As I've said before, given a Rangers player can't fart without the press picking up on it I'm surprised there's not been more evidence uncovered.

[calscot 0]

The fact that the auditors signed off on it every year does not imply that any tax avoidance scheme is water-tight or that they have looked at each player's contracts and were happy that the EBTs were completely discretionary.

 

I wasn't talking about the veracity of the scheme, just that SDM looked pretty much like to be telling the truth.

 

I had thought that the whole issue about our EBTs was that they were not discretionary. if that's not the issue then do you know what the premise of HMRCs argument is?

 

I would have thought it was reasonably obvious. Basically we have "pretended" the payments were discretionary but left little evidence for it. They are trying to prove that we were pretending possibly with evidence and possibly just trying to convince the judges that the implied contract is there due to it being beyond reasonable thinking that the payments could be discretionary given the nature of them.

 

There may be scraps of evidence but they are probably vague and interpretative. If there was concrete evidence, the case would have been against us ages ago.

 

Basically the verdict will be whether the tribunal thinks we are lying or not. The danger is, that it's hard to believe we're not.

 

BTW this "lying" is not related to what SDM said in the article.

 

Sounds like the letter (if it exists) would be a contract. if that was the case then Murray would be lying?

 

Not from his words in that article. He didn't say anything about a letter. SDM may usually lie constantly but in that article he stuck with the facts.

 

You? Surely not.

 

Me? Never intentionally. I'm very aware of it when it happens and tend to point it out when it appears to be happening.

 

I like to get to the nitty gritty; however, find many others try to avoid it to protect their entrenched positions or to just score points...

[capstans 0]

King talking nonsense from 70mins on and particularly from 79mins on.

 

http://www.podcast-directory.co.uk/episodes/clyde-1-superscoreboard-thursday-10th-nov-16420192.html