You're wrong! Adam hits out at Sir Davidâ??s EBTs defence

[ian1964 10,595]

By John Mcgarry

PUBLISHED: 22:49, 14 March 2012 | UPDATED: 22:49, 14 March 2012

 

Hugh Adam has railed against Sir David Murrayâ??s defence of EBTs, claiming they were simply part of the Ibrox starsâ?? salaries.

Murray broke his silence on Tuesday to confirm the two main allegations Adam made in Sportsmail last month.

The man who created Rangers Pools claimed EBTs had been used in the 1990s and that they had been excluded from player contracts registered with the SFA and SPL.

Excuses won't wash: David Murray attempted to defend his use of EBTs

If true, the second allegation would be in direct contravention of both bodiesâ?? rules on player registration, which demand full disclosure of all remuneration.

Having seen both bodies launch investigations in the past week, Murray defended the use of EBTs by insisting there was no obligation to detail them in contracts as there was â??no contractual entitlement on the part of the playersâ??.

Adam, however, responded by insisting that, far from being discretionary, the money paid via EBTs was, in effect, wages.

â??It was effectively salary and should have been included in the playersâ?? wage slips,â?? he said. â??It was a way of attracting players into the club. I think he (Murray) was aware that if he did that, the players would be quite happy and would stay with Rangers. If someone can give you an extra twenty grand a year that you donâ??t have to account for, then youâ??d jump at it.

â??I donâ??t see how you can have that kind of contract and just take a bit out of it as you go along.

Duped: Murray claimed he was taken in by Rangers owner Craig Whyte

â??If you were trying to attract players, you had to get money from all sources. He probably wouldnâ??t have been paying them enough in the ordinary way.â??

Although Murray has denied the existence of a â??second contractâ?? containing EBT payments, employment lawyers who examined a â??back letterâ?? given to an unnamed player detailing bonuses believed it to be a de facto contract.

Adam maintains that whatever shape it is in, there exist written agreements detailing remuneration which were not lodged with the authorities.

â??I always said there were separate contracts. I said that quite deliberately,â?? he added. â??If there hadnâ??t been, they would have been in the main books. It wasnâ??t included in the standard contract. Thatâ??s a certainty.â??

On the day that SFA president Campbell Ogilvie admitted having an EBT, but stressed that since the mid-1990s heâ??d had no part in administrating contracts, Adam concurred, saying: â??Campbell would only have been a nominal general secretary. David (Murray) was secretive and kept these things to himself.â??

 

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/foo...#ixzz1p8SkVr7I

[Bluedell 5,417]

Adam, however, responded by insisting that, far from being discretionary, the money paid via EBTs was, in effect, wages.

‘It was effectively salary and should have been included in the players’ wage slips,’ he said. ‘It was a way of attracting players into the club. I think he (Murray) was aware that if he did that, the players would be quite happy and would stay with Rangers. If someone can give you an extra twenty grand a year that you don’t have to account for, then you’d jump at it.

‘I don’t see how you can have that kind of contract and just take a bit out of it as you go along.

 

 

So he is saying that he knew about it as a director and failed in his duty to report it? He should be charged for that.

 

 

On the day that SFA president Campbell Ogilvie admitted having an EBT, but stressed that since the mid-1990s he’d had no part in administrating contracts, Adam concurred, saying: ‘Campbell would only have been a nominal general secretary. David (Murray) was secretive and kept these things to himself.’

 

So how the hell did you know about it, Hugh?

 

Senility is a terrible thing.

[ian1964 10,595]

The thing that worries me is,do I trust Murray?

[plgsarmy 111]

This guy obviously hates Murray but this vendetta is ridiculous. Provide evidence or shut up Hugh.

[A Horse With No Name 0]

"It was effectively salary and should have been included in the players’ wage slips"

 

'Effectively'... 'should have been' both point to that being Hugh Adams' opinion HARDLY FACTUAL IS IT. If that's all the HMRC are gonna come out with then maybe we will win this big tax case.

 

I had a lot of sympathy for Adam the way he was treated by David Murray for speaking out, but it's beginning to sound like he's a bitter man who has changed alliegances and now has joined the Septic minded... The way he's got his teeth into this would suggest he's looking for a job with BBC Scotland.

[craig 5,199]

If Murray was "secretive and kept these thing to himself" then how the hell does Adam himself know about them.

 

Contradiction ? you betcha !!

[craig 5,199]

Sorry BD, hadnt seen your response

 

I agree plg - looks like a massive axe to grind to me !

[Bluedell 5,417]

Great minds, Craig.

[pete 2,499]

Great minds, Craig.

 

Fools seldom differ.:devil:

[pete 2,499]

Agree with everyone if he has no proof then he should not be taken seriously. If the SFA take us to task on the evidence this angry old man is showing then it really is time to fight back and get them kicked out.