: Fri Apr 03, 2009 7:14 pm
For general info on the thrust of the schemes under investigation: this a year ago by one of the top accounting practioners.
http://www.kingstonsmith.co.uk/kingston-smith/sectors/Sports/Know_your_rights.htm
The salient phrase is “The crucial point is that the image right which is usually assigned to a separate company is not in any way geared to employment duties as a rugby player or to his performance on the pitch or elsewhere or as an employee as such. The quantum of the respective amounts has to be proportionate.”
Thus we would expect the club to have documentation in place to demonstate that the "Image rights" payment is equal to the club's financial gain by using such.
We at Tickitt, Additt and Chargem Accountants LP are somewhat surprised by the even more incredulous surprise now professed by some SL clubs.
In 2002 the image rights of David Beckham were challenged by HMRC when (according to the Daily Mail 25/4/2002) it was thought 1/3rd of his salary (estimated at £5m+) was to be paid in "Image Rights"= around £2m. Man U commercial sales were £23.6m at the time so this was held to be reasonable.
Since then HMRC have persued football players, then RU players and now RL players.
The writing has been on the wall for years. Why then have the clubs and particularly the governing body, RFL, not reacted before now?
The principle is not a grey area in the respect stated above, though the ramifications for individual clubs may well go deeper for reasons too numerous to itemise in this already long post.
Caveat : these are only our opinions and no legal inference as to validity of actual truth should be attached or implied nor relied upon.
Our legal representatives at Suam, Grabbit and Runne LLP of 13a, The Pit, Forster Sq, Bradford, BD1 1AA should be contacted in any case.
. It does rhyme with Nero though 
