Waltersgotstyle 307 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 Ok so this has been bugging me over the last few days, I keep reading journalists/fans/a certain chairman all argue that the reason Rangers are being investigated is not due to EBTs but due to the supposed "Dual Contracts". This argument is usually followed with the usual financial doping rubbish and other nonsensical statements of the same ilk. My question however is surely the unfair advantage argument can then be put to bed? I mean the sporting advantage would surely only apply to EBTs as they allow you to "avoid" tax therefore in theory allowing you to pay players more. But in this case the SPL say they are not interested in EBTs or the tax avoidance side of things, they are merely investigating an administration error. Surely the punishment of title stripping does not fit the crime? If what I understand is correct SPL are saying we should have included EBTs as part of a players contracts but we instead declared them in our accounts at the end of the year. Something stinks... 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darthter 542 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 I think the stripping of titles punishment comes from the registration not being correct (IF the EBT were not correctly mentioned). If a player is not registered correctly then they shouldn't be playing. We would then forfeit any matches that said players took part in, and therefore end up losing the title. The real question is why are they only pursuing it now??? They knew we were using them, they had the accounts and they had the registrations....yet still never questioned anything. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waltersgotstyle 307 Posted September 20, 2012 Author Share Posted September 20, 2012 (edited) It is completely bizarre, surely they are as much to blame as Rangers? Edited September 20, 2012 by Waltersgotstyle 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thinker 887 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 The argument on what we're being punished for, and how harshly, keeps going round in circles: Them: "You used EBTs to field players you couldn't afford. That's financial doping." Us: "A) We could have used one of the many other methods routinely employed by football clubs and businesses to minimise tax. And B) Septic also used EBTs and this was deemed okay. Clearly we could afford the players." Them: "Your EBTs were double contracts - that's against football regulations." Us: A) An EBT is, by definition, not a contract. And B) a minor infringement of regulations which offers no competitve advantage is not a reasonable cause for stripping titles." Them: "But you did get a competitve advantage! You used EBTs to field players you couldn't afford. That's financial doping." 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GovanAllan 0 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 You cant make sense of something that makes no logical sense. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
54andcounting 0 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 The argument on what we're being punished for, and how harshly, keeps going round in circles: Them: "You used EBTs to field players you couldn't afford. That's financial doping." Us: "A) We could have used one of the many other methods routinely employed by football clubs and businesses to minimise tax. And B) Septic also used EBTs and this was deemed okay. Clearly we could afford the players." Them: "Your EBTs were double contracts - that's against football regulations." Us: A) An EBT is, by definition, not a contract. And B) a minor infringement of regulations which offers no competitve advantage is not a reasonable cause for stripping titles." Them: "But you did get a competitve advantage! You used EBTs to field players you couldn't afford. That's financial doping." What about Real Madrid, Barca, Man U, Chelsea and such are they not fielding players they cant afford? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stewarty 2,060 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 The flawed logic is immaterial to those with bloodlust. Kick, kick and kick again. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
laudrup11 0 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 How do they define a dual contract then ? If it is aimed at us paying a percentage of wages then topping it up at later date/Time does that not amount to same thing as Dermot Desmond paying certain players a percentage of their wages ? eg Robbie, Roy Keane and others ? 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
the gunslinger 3,366 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 its exactly that. were essentially accused if not photocopying enough. the fact the SPL want to strip 9 trophys for an administration error simply proves its a witch hunt. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aweebluesoandso 290 Posted September 20, 2012 Share Posted September 20, 2012 They are trying to fit the punishmnet of stripping titles round an error any error. 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.