Maybe tax isn;t so boring after all? : Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:17 am  

Have a look at this Those who I bored to tears on here about the HMRC tax investigations - and who maybe twigged which club I was assuming would be especially badly affected - might see a bit more clearly why, now? The really interesting bit is the implication that the players' contractual arrangements looked to have allowed the club to make the player responsible for any additional tax. That means the club can stay within the cap but the player is stuffed. Good work by the lawyers of the affected club/s. Interesting times ahead... Oh, and our Huddersfield hyenas who are revelling in our misfortunes may not be quite as happy now either?

Have a look at this Those who I bored to tears on here about the HMRC tax investigations - and who maybe twigged which club I was assuming would be especially badly affected - might see a bit more clearly why, now? The really interesting bit is the implication that the players' contractual arrangements looked to have allowed the club to make the player responsible for any additional tax. That means the club can stay within the cap but the player is stuffed. Good work by the lawyers of the affected club/s. Interesting times ahead... Oh, and our Huddersfield hyenas who are revelling in our misfortunes may not be quite as happy now either?

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:42 am  

May mean that as Macca said earlier in the season, we still have money if the right player becomes available.

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:57 am  

Ewwenorfolk wrote:

May mean that as Macca said earlier in the season, we still have money if the right player becomes available.

Bear in mind that we'll unlikely get to know the extent to which these issues, if at all, affect us?

If the RFL keeps the salary cap as is, then I suspect that certain other clubs will be significantly worse affected relative to us. But if the RFL increases the cap to accommodate those clubs, then it would very likely be to our severe detriment as things now stand.

I think its the clubs themselves who vote on the cap and other rules, so this could prove very interesting. If Leeds are significantly implicated, I'd bet the house on the cap being increased.l

But...still all remains speculation, lets remember that.

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:02 am  

I can't see them upping the cap in the near future when teams like Cas, Wakey and Hull KR are doing so well. Look at Wire; the money isn't helping them. The vote would probably go:

For Increase: Stay the same:
Leeds Bradford
Wire Cas
Wigan Wakey
Hull FC Hull KR
Huddersfield Salford
Saints Celtic
Harlequins



Not sure about Catalans, but I think an increase would be voted against by the majority.

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:33 am  

What is perhaps more interesting is the fact that the RFL, as the RFU has done, will work with the Inland Revenue to find a way out of this. It's fairly obvious that if you were a Rooney or a Gerrard or Beckham then your Image value is considerable. It could be said the same about Johnny Wilkinson but the Tax people are looking at people like Michael Monaghan who cleary have no Image value and are using it as a tax loophole. Now here comes the crunch.

Clubs affected are having to submit their books to the Inland Revenue who will then sit down with the RFL to sort it out. The RFL will then find out which clubs have been using the 'Singapore Sling' to 'cheat' the Salary Cap. My information is that it is quite a lot of them! The RFL will have that information but, given their reluctance to penalise certain clubs - because they have been obsessed with getting rid of the Big Four - will they penalise these clubs now for years of deliberately cheating or will they sweep it under the carpet. Don't hold you breath waiting for punishment if Leeds are found to have cheated.

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:34 am  

Ewwenorfolk wrote:

I can't see them upping the cap in the near future when teams like Cas, Wakey and Hull KR are doing so well. Look at Wire; the money isn't helping them. The vote would probably go:

For Increase: Stay the same:
Leeds Bradford
Wire Cas
Wigan Wakey
Hull FC Hull KR
Huddersfield Salford
Saints Celtic
Harlequins



Not sure about Catalans, but I think an increase would be voted against by the majority.

Not sure why Hudds would vote in favour, Can they afford to increase their salary bill?

Wont the fudge be that any extra payments made by the clubs in order to compensate players with existing contracts will be disregarded for the purposes of the cap?

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:36 am  

Tiger Beer wrote:

Clubs affected are having to submit their books to the Inland Revenue who will then sit down with the RFL to sort it out. The RFL will then find out which clubs have been using the 'Singapore Sling' to 'cheat' the Salary Cap. My information is that it is quite a lot of them! The RFL will have that information but, given their reluctance to penalise certain clubs - because they have been obsessed with getting rid of the Big Four - will they penalise these clubs now for years of deliberately cheating or will they sweep it under the carpet. Don't hold you breath waiting for punishment if Leeds are found to have cheated.

I guess that would be determined whether they believe they have broken the tax law or just used a loop hole. If it's a loop hole i guess they will be told to stop for next season and if it's a case of broken....they should be penalised, no if's, no but's

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:36 am  

Cibaman wrote:

Not sure why Hudds would vote in favour, Can they afford to increase their salary bill?

Wont the fudge be that any extra payments made by the clubs in order to compensate players with existing contracts will be disregarded for the purposes of the cap?

Possibly, Hudds have got a bit of cash now - Signed Fulton and are in talks with Fien for next season.

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:41 am  

Tiger Beer wrote:

What is perhaps more interesting is the fact that the RFL, as the RFU has done, will work with the Inland Revenue to find a way out of this. It's fairly obvious that if you were a Rooney or a Gerrard or Beckham then your Image value is considerable. It could be said the same about Johnny Wilkinson but the Tax people are looking at people like Michael Monaghan who cleary have no Image value and are using it as a tax loophole. Now here comes the crunch.

Clubs affected are having to submit their books to the Inland Revenue who will then sit down with the RFL to sort it out. The RFL will then find out which clubs have been using the 'Singapore Sling' to 'cheat' the Salary Cap. My information is that it is quite a lot of them! The RFL will have that information but, given their reluctance to penalise certain clubs - because they have been obsessed with getting rid of the Big Four - will they penalise these clubs now for years of deliberately cheating or will they sweep it under the carpet. Don't hold you breath waiting for punishment if Leeds are found to have cheated.

Good to get the view from the club on this . Accords pretty well with what I have surmised and deduced. Just wish your usual source had been a bit more clear on the extent to which we are implicated, if at all.

And funny how its not just me been saying don't expect any sanctions if Leeds are implicated...

I invented the term "Singapore Parachute" (Unless anyone beat me to it!) but I think I prefer the "Singapore Sling" better cos it makes it clearer that the money wings its way to Oz without hitting the ground, and just a little bit faster than the jet with the player on...

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:50 am  

Ewwenorfolk wrote:

I can't see them upping the cap in the near future when teams like Cas, Wakey and Hull KR are doing so well. Look at Wire; the money isn't helping them. The vote would probably go:

For Increase: Stay the same:
Leeds Bradford
Wire Cas
Wigan Wakey
Hull FC Hull KR
Huddersfield Salford
Saints Celtic
Harlequins



Not sure about Catalans, but I think an increase would be voted against by the majority.

Out of interest, why would Leeds be in favour of an increase? condisdering they have not spent the allowed cap fully since the concept came in.

You seriously believe that GH would encourage spending more?