In reply to Andy Say:
It's not completely irrelevant to say I don't rate or trust the journalist, Daly. 3 years ago he made another programme, about Rangers and their use of EBT's. It was damning, you were left wondering how the club ever though they could get away with it. Then, part way through the programme, it became apparent to me he was manipulating the evidence to make a stronger case. He produced an email and timeline to suggest one player must have received an EBT in lieu of salary. The email was from a Rangers employee asking if the player had received an EBT as part of his new contract (which would be illegal). Daly claimed the response to the email did not include a denial and ipso facto must be true. When it came to court, Rangers won, something which would appear impossible if you watched Daly's programme. But the problem was encapsulated in that email. It turned out it was from a junior employee who was not privy to salary details. The response to his email was essentially 'none of your business'.
Based on what I've seen, Daly seems to have employed similar tactics here - built the case for the prosecution, and paid enough lip service to the defence to keep the lawyers happy. But no smoking guns.
(note, an EBT is a way of making an ex gratia payment to a person for no apparent cause, they draw it as a loan which is subsequently cancelled. They didn't pay tax. Introduced by Gordon Brown, but made illegal since. If there is any paperwork demonstrating that the EBT was linked to employment, performance etc, tax was due)
