The Second Contract?

Did some Rangers’ players have two contracts?

Darryl King, an experienced journalist *with the Herald and Evening times, seems to think they did and said so on live radio.

From what I can gather the story centres on the possibility that Rangers players had a PAYE contract that said how much they were being paid and the amount of PAYE and NI they would have deducted at source.

So far so ordinary.

However there is an allegation that there was SECOND contract and this told the player how much would be lodged in the Employee Benefit Trust for him. These monies would then be “lent” to the player from the Trust.

If these second contracts exist then they effectively constitute suicide notes for Rangers in the big tax case.

If this story is true then it has possible consequences for the football authorities.

A player’s contract has four parts and they are identical in content.
One goes to the SFA, one goes to the appropriate league (SPL, SFL etc.), one is retained by the club and the player, of course, has his part.
Therefore a Players’ contracts being lodged with the SFA is non-negotiable.
So who knew what and when did they know it?

Any reasonable person might ask the following:

(1)*** Did the second contract exist?

(2)*** Were both contracts lodged with the SFA?

(3)*** If only one contract was lodged with the SFA were they aware of the existence of the second contract?

I spoke to someone involved in *football administration today about these* putative second contracts for some Rangers players he said that the SFA accepted* paper work from club s ”on face value” and did not have the resources or the inclination to investigate them.
I think that may have to change.



Big Bad Phil

http://www.philmacgiollabhain.ie/the-second-contract-fact-or-rumour/

 

It's an absolute FACT.

I have sauces in Ibrox.

 

An alleged story were Phil McGillivan spoke to "someone involved in football administration" about alleged contracts.

 

MTS you are a ****ing retarded ****

 

You love my posts

What better way to unite the orcs than a Timmy spouting "lies"

 

MTS, it's a sad day when I can't make you look an even bigger **** by editing your posts.

This would be like me taking everything Leggo says as gospel.

 

Why don't you lock the thread Mopey...

 

Nah, I'll see where this one goes.

Do the windows on your bus taste of strawberry?

 

Really.....seriously......ffs


Yer maw

 

Actually, you will find that a lot of professional players in the top leagues have several contracts with teams mate covering things from their wage to image rights to things like Harry Kewell's attendance clause with Melbourne.

Also the pish about contracts being lodged with the FA of that country.... Registrations yes, but contracts no.

 

A clause would be different but I understand what you mean

The thing he is poking at is that if this 2nd contract exists for the payment of a contract into an EBT then its an admission of guilt as contracts (regular salaries) can't be paid into them.

That's my understanding anyway

 

Rangers are involved in a tax case?

 

Yeah

Jim traynor just broke the news for record readers early this week

 

That's exactly it mate. It's the definition of the payments in the contract that is under question.

 

I am going to take a guess that no **** on here has a ****ing clue about what is happening. Apologies if there is somebody in the know though(let's face it even if you aren't in the know, you still have a 50/50 chance of being correct)

 

So those payments could be defined as "gifts" and therefore be 100% legal. Surely Murray had the savvy to know this?

 

The problem is that the original understanding of the legislation was that clubs were doing nothing illegal, merely "bending" the wording of the laws to get around them. Then HMRC decided otherwise, and it dropped many companies and teams in the ****ter. Therefore any contracts from that period would not have been done in a way to hide the payments, as at the time there was no reason to do so.

I know as a Celtic fan I'm biased 99.9% of the time, but I honestly can't see a way out of it for Rangers. What I can definitely see is them only paying a % of what they owe. It's a common thing with larger businesses across the whole of the UK.

 

Setting up an offshore account (EBT) to pay (tax free) monies to players is not illegal as long as it's done with a nod and a wink and kept "off the books". Unfortunately the players/agents did not think a nod and a wink would suffice when it came to paying money, so they asked for it to be written down in the contract, Rangers duly obliged and that's when they ****ed themselves up.

 

Depends what is on these second contracts, it is fair to assume the first contract is your usual player contract with salary, clauses, bonuses etc & if a second one does exist it is for the players benefit to show what the EBT means for them ie no need to worry about tax & a true salary they could expect through the EBT.

In effect the second contract over rules the first & therefore would need to have been sent to the SFA which means they would be fully aware of it & it also shows Rangers were fully aware of what they were doing.

 

**** me

I started a serious debate

I need a lie down