Some facts and figures on the EBT days

[der Berliner 3,660]

Some posters on FF have collected a few intersting stats from those days.

 

http://forum.followfollow.com/showthread.php?1114198-Rangers-use-of-EBT-s-some-interesting-statistics

 

In the period of 1890/91 to 2000/01 there were 103 League Campaigns in Scotland, (110 years minus the 7 war years)

 

Rangers won the league on 49 occasions (success rate of 47.5%)

 

Celtic won the league 37 times (success rate of 36%)

 

Firstly, this proves beyond doubt that even without EBT's (which started in 2001), Rangers were more than capable of winning the league and being more successful than Celtic.

 

Then we move onto the 2001/02 to 2010/11 period, which is the 10 year period Rangers used EBT's.

 

Rangers won the league on 5 occasions (success rate of 50%)

 

Celtic also won the league on 5 occasions (success rate of 50%)

 

So, in the EBT period of which Rangers were supposed to have gained a sporting advantage, our success rate only marginally increased, while Celtics increased by 14% from the historic norm!

 

Finally, due to the EBT's and the financial bedlam that ensued, Rangers were demoted and In the period 2011/12 to 2016/17 of 6 years we had

 

Celtic won the league 6 times (success rate of 100%)

 

 

So, ask yourself this, who REALLY benefitted from the use of EBT's, because given the above stats, it certainly wasn't Rangers!

 

Between 2001 - 2010, EBT's totalled £47m, of which £11m went to non playing staff. Tax and NI actually avoided during this time in total was some £23.5m ( £18m playing staff ), during a period Rangers turnover was in total £516m. During the period wages to turnover ratio was 57%, which if you compare to other clubs is entirely reasonable.

 

Rangers apparently paid Murray £0.6m/annum = £6m in total for this to be imposed upon us, so net tax "benefit" in playing sense was around £12m over 10 seasons, representing little more than 2% of turnover of £512m.

 

EBT's were used to most extent in 2006, a season in which we finished 3rd.

 

Between 2008-2011, our most successful period in this time, we paid only £5m in EBT's as they were ran down ( £2.5m tax and NI due) after which the £0.6m paid to Murray means there was no actual financial, far less sporting, benefit to Rangers. All in a period we were profitable, reducing bank debt by £14m at Lloydys Banks insistence.

 

What is absolutely clear is that there is no link to the amount paid into EBT's compared to success on the park at this, or any other time.

 

All of this at a time when there was no rules about debt, or anything else.

 

For the "benefit" of the above avoidance of tax, we have lost a full first team squad ( est £30m? )and probably revenue of anything between £50m-£100m. And some claim we have ectually benfitted and deserve title stripping.

 

That would be justice. Really??

 

Some opinions ...

 

there was also a list of wage expenditure during the EBT years

and their outlay vastly dwarfed ours

...

MON first season they spent something like £20m net...

 

2003 Thompson scores his missed penalty, Arteta misses his penalty--they win the league

2005 They are winning league with 3 minutes to go and the helicopter has to turn

2009 They are about 9 points ahead at Hogmanay and try to get Fletcher on loan---we catch them

2010 Agent Mowbray succeeds

2011 They are ahead with 3 or 4 games to go but lose to ICT.

 

Do they not think that failure to win the league was their fault, and nothing to do with EBT's ?

 

There were no football regulations governing 'financial doping' in those days and many clubs accumulated large debts. Rangers always had the option of simply borrowing more from the bank. So did other clubs.

 

The 'advantage' gained by using EBTs came with an associated downside, namely, it was always possible - some would argue probable - that HMRC would eventually come calling and demand not only payment of tax and NI but large penalties and interest.

 

Other clubs also had the option of using tax avoidance measures such as EBTs or 'image rights'.

 

Therefore, the allegation of 'cheating' is superficial nonsense aimed at the hard of thinking. It has only gained credence in Scotland due to a media onslaught and the relative absence of rational views.

 

 

The question begs itself as to why EBT use is an issue now or was in 2012 rather than in 2000 when Rangers introduced them. Is it seriously being argued that clubs like Celtic weren't aware? If they had a problem, then why not raise it at a much earlier stage?

 

The timing of the first move to strip honours from Rangers - days after the club entered administration - points to the truth. The club's enemies saw an opportunity to humiliate it further and believed they would face little opposition from the club itself.

 

This was an operational tax avoidance decision.

 

Loads of companies make those. Some stick some are challenged.

 

It's of no more relevance than borrowing more than you can afford to service. Something we didn't do.

 

Are we going to look at Hearts Motherwell and Airdrie as they clearly had players they "couldn't afford" ?

 

Pathetic bitter nonsense from those with the usual agenda.

[Darthter 542]

strictly speaking.....ANY purchase which results in debt, is a purchase you can't afford.

[craig 5,199]

strictly speaking.....ANY purchase which results in debt, is a purchase you can't afford.

 

That isn't necessarily so though.

 

Many companies will take on debt despite having cash and assets in hand. There is sound business reasoning to having some level of debt on your books as a business.

 

However, if you mean "results in NET debt" then I agree with you