The EBT Cup Finals: Players who lost out to Rangers have their say

[Frankie 8,663]

From today's Record:

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/ebt-cup-finals-players-who-6778766?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

 

RANGERS won 14 trophies during the EBT years from 2001 to 2010 – prompting many fans to call for those victories to be struck from the record.

 

Seven of those trophies came in cup finals against provincial clubs.

 

Record Sport’s Anthony Haggerty asked a member of each of those teams if they felt the Ibrox club should have the trophy taken from them by the authorities.

 

2002 Scottish League Cup Final

Rangers...4 Ayr United...0

 

FORMER Ayr defender Paul Lovering said: “It is not my view the result should be amended. It was just a privilege to play in a cup final for Ayr against a

 

star-studded Rangers team that was packed with quality players such as Tore Andre Flo and Claudio Caniggia.

 

“That was an amazing experience and it would have been nice for Ayr to win the League Cup but it was not to be.”

2003 Scottish Cup Final

Rangers...1 Dundee...0

 

DUNDEE (now St Johnstone) defender Dave Mackay said: “It wouldn’t make a difference to me or interest me whatsoever. It would not make me feel as if I had won the Cup. Dundee had their chance to win that day and we never took it. It has gone and it is done and dusted.

 

“Having said if the result was ever to be reversed then maybe I could claim a retrospective win bonus!”

 

 

2005 Scottish League Cup Final

Rangers...5 Motherwell...1

 

FORMER Motherwell defender Martyn Corrigan said: “History can’t be changed and what has happened in the past should stand. What happens from now on in though would be a different story. If it was to change and the result declared void then myself and the rest of the Motherwell players would end up with a League Cup winners medal and while I’d be happy with that I don’t think it would be ideal.”

 

2008 Scottish League Cup Final

Rangers...5 Dundee Utd...2 (Rangers win 3-2 on penalties)

 

DUNDEE UNITED (now Falkirk) midfielder Mark Kerr said: “There is nothing to be gained by stripping Rangers of the trophy and awarding the League Cup to Dundee United. We thought Rangers were a good team back then and nobody felt they were overspending. We were up against some class Rangers teams in those days. However, United were twice in a winning position in that final before it went to penalties and we were even leading the shoot-out. We put up a great challenge but it just wasn’t our day.”

 

2008 Scottish Cup Final

Rangers...3 Queen of the South...2

 

FORMER QoS captain Jim Thomson said: “It is a difficult one but I would not call for Rangers to be stripped of the Scottish Cup. It was 11 v 11 and Queens just came up short.

 

“Rangers made it all the way to the UEFA Cup Final that season and had a real backlog of games which Queens didn’t have to cope with. The players won the silverware on the park fair and square.”

 

2009 Scottish Cup Final

Rangers...1 Falkirk...0

 

FALKIRK defender (now Dumbarton) Darren Barr said: “I never thought about any of those issues at the time. It is a weird one to call as all we were thinking about was winning the Scottish Cup for Falkirk. I don’t think that anything else should be done about it now.

 

“The Falkirk fans might feel differently about that. For me the result does not change and it would not feel right.”

 

 

2010 Scottish League Cup Final

Rangers...1 St Mirren...0

 

ST MIRREN keeper (now Partick Thistle) Paul Gallacher said: “I don’t feel it was an injustice. We had a big opportunity to win the game that day as they had two players sent off.

 

“They did it on the pitch – not in the boardroom – and that

 

St Mirren team will always be remembered as the team that lost a final to nine men which is disappointing. Unfortunately, it was their day.”

Edited November 6, 2015 by Frankie

[Frankie 8,663]

And from Martin O'Neill - also in the Record

 

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/former-celtic-boss-martin-oneill-6778507

 

THE former Celtic boss refused to join the clamber to punish the Ibrox club following the Court of Session ruling the Light Blues’ controversial bonus scheme was in breach of tax laws.

 

MARTIN O’Neill insists he has little desire to see the titles won in the EBT era ripped from Rangers.

 

The former Celtic boss refused to join the clamber to punish the Ibrox club following the Court of Session ruling the Light Blues’ controversial bonus scheme was in breach of tax laws.

 

O’Neill’s Hoops lost the SPL title twice on the final day of the season to the Gers in his five years in charge at Parkhead - while they were operating the Sir David Murray sanctioned undeclared dodge from 2001-2010.

 

Rangers won five league titles and four Scottish Cups in the nine years and a large section of the Celtic support believe Wednesday’s ruling proves their old rivals gained a unfair sporting advantage as they could attract better players than they should have been able to afford.

 

Lord Nimmo Smith declared there would be no sporting sanction after an SPL enquiry in 2013 - although that was after two tax case hearings had cleared the Ibrox club of any financial wrong doing.

 

There have been calls to re-assess that judgement following this week’s HMRC appeal victory but the Republic of Ireland manager can see no point in opening up old wounds from his time in Glasgow.

 

O’Neill insisted the court’s findings have not changed anything from his spell as Hoops boss - good or bad.

 

He is convinced the trophies were won by Rangers on the pitch and is not looking back in anger.

 

O’Neill said: “What is comes down to is this - there were titles and cups that were won and lost on a field of play when two teams went up against one another.

 

“You do not know what is going on at a football club behind the scenes and you assume that everything is as it appears.

 

“But these games were played a long time ago and as far as I am concerned, all these years later my emotions have not changed in terms of how I recall those great days of winning the title with Celtic and the bitter disappointment when we did not.

 

“Memories of times of great joy and times of loss stay the same.

 

“There is nothing that can change how I feel about those experiences. The games were won and lost at the time and there is nothing now that is going to change that.

 

“It is not as if you are going to feel any better about for it, whatever happens.”

Edited November 6, 2015 by Frankie

[Frankie 8,663]

Pleased to note these measured and magnanimous contributions from those interviewed and can especially identify with MoN's comments in particular.

 

It was like when we had Marseille and Zenit investigated for anomalies during the years we played them. There's no way I'd want to gain from such crap and 'winning' something after the fact well down the line wouldn't change the disappointment I felt at the time.

[BEARGER 1,830]

The SPFL board will discuss the implications of HMRC's tax case win on Friday.SNS Group

The Scottish Professional Football League board has scheduled an emergency meeting to discuss the Rangers Tax Case after HMRC won a ruling that payments to players at Ibrox should have been taxed for almost a decade.

 

The tax authorities won an appeal at the Court of Session on Wednesday which ruled that Employee Benefit Trusts (EBTs) used to pay Rangers employees between 2001 and 2009 were contractual earning which were subject to tax.

 

Today, the eight-man board will now consider the verdict and decide if further action is to be taken by the league body.

 

STV understands that the meeting will take place by conference call and that though other league matters will be discussed, the EBT issue is the primary subject matter.

 

The SPFL’s predecessor, the Scottish Premier League, set up a commission headed by Lord Nimmo Smith to investigate the use of EBTs by Rangers and whether league rules has been broken. In 2013 the commission reported back and concluded that the payments should have been declared to the league.

 

Rangers oldco was fined £250,000 and ordered to pay £150,000 in costs and the payment of the fine is still in dispute with an arbitration panel yet to rule on whether Rangers newco is liable for payment.

 

At the time of Lord Nimmo Smith’s ruling, EBT payments were not considered to have been taxable earnings. Now, with that decision having been reversed on appeal, the SPFL will consider if further action can be taken.

 

The SPFL Board is made up of chief executive Neil Doncaster, chairman Ralph Topping, Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Eric Drysdale (Raith Rovers) and Mike Mulraney (Alloa Athletic) and Ken Ferguson (Brechin City).

[True_Ger_1872 2]

The SPFL Board is made up of chief executive Neil Doncaster, chairman Ralph Topping, Duncan Fraser (Aberdeen), Eric Riley (Celtic), Stephen Thompson (Dundee United), Eric Drysdale (Raith Rovers) and Mike Mulraney (Alloa Athletic) and Ken Ferguson (Brechin City).

 

Jeez-o.....

[RANGERRAB 3,742]

The LNS investigation commissioned by the SPL had nothing to do with whether EBT's were taxable or not.

 

Its remit was to determine the EBT's were effectively side contracts which should have been declared to the football authorities & whether they gave Rangers an unfair advantage.

The outcome was that they should have been declared & Rangers got a fine of £250k which was passed to newco. It's still being disputed according to the AGM prospectus.

The outcome also stated their was 'no sporting advantage' from these EBT's.

[calscot 0]

It was like when we had Marseille and Zenit investigated for anomalies during the years we played them. There's no way I'd want to gain from such crap and 'winning' something after the fact well down the line wouldn't change the disappointment I felt at the time.

 

I have to disagree. It's nothing like that. We did not cheat, period. You can accuse Murray of taking too big a tax risk, but it wasn't cheating. It was unwittingly making an accounting mistake on a tax loophole that is pretty much unfathomable. Two tribunals and load of tax experts have vindicated that.

 

The accusations of cheating come from the easily dismissed premise that we "employed players that we could NOT OTHERWISE have afforded." That is just plain ignorant and obtuse. The amount we saved per year on a 35m wage bill was about 1.7m per year (when you deduct non playing staff) from a total of 17m. We're talking a paltry 5% overspend which would have resulted in us having a 35m debt in 2011 instead of 18m on a 40-60m turnover (depending on European performance). Let's also add say five million in interest, making it 40m.

 

Without the weight of the tax claim, that would have been serviceable, at a maximum of about 100% of turnover. Not a great position but we'd be in a better situation than now and in the top tier. We may have had to cut back to pay the debts and that could have affected our performance in the competitions over the past 5 years - not exactly something we've subverted...

 

This would also have made Rangers eminently sell-able to rich fans - especially for a penny. Even the likes of Green could raise about £27m in funding for the club in the lowest tier and having lost most of the squad and a load of fines. Just think what the 3 Bears could have done. Raising a similar amount could have reduced the debt to about 13m while keeping the squad, the SPL membership, access to Europe and the normal 40-60m turnover. In that way we could easily have competed as we did before Whyte took over.

 

Bring in King a couple of years later and our debts could have been wiped out.

 

When you look at that scenario there is a hell of a lot of "otherwise" in there.

 

Again Rangers are guilty of unwittingly misinterpreting unfathomable tax laws, no evidence for intention to cheat was there - it was trying to play within rules. Compare and contrast with Celtic who do not follow this line and have therefore tacitly admitted maliciously cheating while thinking that they are exonerated by admitting this after they were caught and settling an amount. They don't seem to get that just because you plead guilty after you were caught and then pay the fine, does not make you innocent. They have made their peace with HMRC but their bare faced cheating has yet to be dealt with by the football authorities, who brushed it under the carpet. The irony and hypocrisy is heavy but even most bears aren't seeing it.

[calscot 0]

Maybe we need a football analogy to assess what is cheating.

 

Imagine that a team look at the rules and think, if we want to pass back to the keeper and for him to pick it up, what we can do is have two defenders and one hits the ball off another defender so it deflects to the keeper and so he can pick it up. They consult with referees and they agree that it's within the rules.

 

So this team do this in every game for ten years, no referee punishes them, the SFA know about it but do nothing, and the team win a lot of trophies.

 

THEN the SFA decide that this should not be allowed and backdate this 10 years, meaning the team forfeit every game, are stripped of all trophies and relegated. The club appeal to a sports tribunal who find that they have played within the rules as set out. The SFA appeal this and it's thrown out of the next tribunal.

 

THEN they appeal again and get a bunch of judges who ignore the rules and look at it through the "common sense" point of view. They decide that the intention is to pass back and therefore it's against the spirit of the rules. The club are then punished.

 

Now two questions: Firstly, is this fair in the slightest or common sense? Secondly, did the club actually cheat or knowingly do anything wrong?

[Frankie 8,663]

I have to disagree. It's nothing like that. We did not cheat, period. You can accuse Murray of taking too big a tax risk, but it wasn't cheating. It was unwittingly making an accounting mistake on a tax loophole that is pretty much unfathomable. Two tribunals and load of tax experts have vindicated that.

 

The accusations of cheating come from the easily dismissed premise that we "employed players that we could NOT OTHERWISE have afforded." That is just plain ignorant and obtuse. The amount we saved per year on a 35m wage bill was about 1.7m per year (when you deduct non playing staff) from a total of 17m. We're talking a paltry 5% overspend which would have resulted in us having a 35m debt in 2011 instead of 18m on a 40-60m turnover (depending on European performance). Let's also add say five million in interest, making it 40m.

 

Without the weight of the tax claim, that would have been serviceable, at a maximum of about 100% of turnover. Not a great position but we'd be in a better situation than now and in the top tier. We may have had to cut back to pay the debts and that could have affected our performance in the competitions over the past 5 years - not exactly something we've subverted...

 

This would also have made Rangers eminently sell-able to rich fans - especially for a penny. Even the likes of Green could raise about £27m in funding for the club in the lowest tier and having lost most of the squad and a load of fines. Just think what the 3 Bears could have done. Raising a similar amount could have reduced the debt to about 13m while keeping the squad, the SPL membership, access to Europe and the normal 40-60m turnover. In that way we could easily have competed as we did before Whyte took over.

 

Bring in King a couple of years later and our debts could have been wiped out.

 

When you look at that scenario there is a hell of a lot of "otherwise" in there.

 

Again Rangers are guilty of unwittingly misinterpreting unfathomable tax laws, no evidence for intention to cheat was there - it was trying to play within rules. Compare and contrast with Celtic who do not follow this line and have therefore tacitly admitted maliciously cheating while thinking that they are exonerated by admitting this after they were caught and settling an amount. They don't seem to get that just because you plead guilty after you were caught and then pay the fine, does not make you innocent. They have made their peace with HMRC but their bare faced cheating has yet to be dealt with by the football authorities, who brushed it under the carpet. The irony and hypocrisy is heavy but even most bears aren't seeing it.

 

Well, of course we didn't cheat - that wasn't my point. I was merely turning the issue around to show how we may feel if the shoe was on the other foot.

[compo 7,217]

In my 70 years I never ever thought there could be so much hatred to our club it sickens me