Maybe the tax issues are more important than people thought? : Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:09 am  

I did warn about the implications of the HMRC actions earlier. Looks like there may be something in it after all Interesting. Suggests the route being taken is to get back within the cap by making the player responsible for the extra tax, going forward. (Won't affect any arrears of tax and NI, cos they'll fall on the clubs affected anyway) That would work, but at the expense of happy players? Must mean your contracts allowed for reversion to players if the tax status changed - that would be good planning and legals if it was. Assuming of course the report is accurate?

I did warn about the implications of the HMRC actions earlier. Looks like there may be something in it after all Interesting. Suggests the route being taken is to get back within the cap by making the player responsible for the extra tax, going forward. (Won't affect any arrears of tax and NI, cos they'll fall on the clubs affected anyway) That would work, but at the expense of happy players? Must mean your contracts allowed for reversion to players if the tax status changed - that would be good planning and legals if it was. Assuming of course the report is accurate?

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:28 am  

So King and Moanaghan will have to settle for £300k and £200k per year respectively then.


Don't see why your so bothered about Warrington. We are not so desperate that we pick on the ill and infirm to keep our costs down.

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:29 am  

It's more important if you have a lot of overseas players who won't except the 12% pay cut ,Club wise it shouldn't effect too much as it is up to the players to pay there own tax bill and not the club,That is why the Inland Revenue went after Appo as the players are basically self employed and not down to the club,I think all negotiations with the RL are to allow clubs to increase the salary cap to cope with the extra 12% they would have to pay the players.
As far as King and Monaghan are concerned I doubt they would be missed by us as they have both been pretty poor .
I also think that this could be another good thing for the game as the so called NRL stars contingent will diminish thus giving more young stars the opportunity to come through.
It imo will hit clubs like Wigan more who have a huge overseas contingent in their team we only have 5 in the squad pies have somewhere nearer 10 due to dubious interpretations of the quota rules .

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:37 am  

Herb Narvo wrote:

Don't see why your so bothered about Warrington. We are not so desperate that we pick on the ill and infirm to keep our costs down.

No need for that. I'm not trolling.

I'm not bothered. I have only ever sought to try and help clear up - across various boards - a raft of misconceptions about the tax issues. Go check out my posts elsewhere and on TotalRl. Its not my fault that your club looks to be (as I suspected but rarely said) one of those more implicated.

But maybe, just maybe, one of the reasons that you have not "...had to pick on the ill and infirm to keep our costs down" is because you were doing something that some other clubs were not doing or at least on that scale, something which if history was being rewritten you would not be allowed to do? Something which, if history was being rewritten, would have amounted to breach of the cap?

But, as I said, I'm not trying to gloat or anything - firstly cos I don't do that, and despise those who do - and secondly because its far from clear which clubs are implicated, and to what extent. As I've said before, there MAY be some clues in which clubs have seemingly managed to get more bang for their bucks, but that's speculation.

No, I'm still just trying to assist the debate in a field where (unlike the game itself, where I am a rank amateur) I know a little about.

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:54 am  

Cheers Adeybull you have been helpful on this and your other posts in trying to explaining the tax implications.

I guess we will just have to wait and see what the overseas players decide to do, as for Monas I think he wants out anyway.

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:56 am  

wire 74 wrote:

It's more important if you have a lot of overseas players who won't except the 12% pay cut ,Club wise it shouldn't effect too much as it is up to the players to pay there own tax bill and not the club,That is why the Inland Revenue went after Appo as the players are basically self employed and not down to the club,I think all negotiations with the RL are to allow clubs to increase the salary cap to cope with the extra 12% they would have to pay the players.
As far as King and Monaghan are concerned I doubt they would be missed by us as they have both been pretty poor .
I also think that this could be another good thing for the game as the so called NRL stars contingent will diminish thus giving more young stars the opportunity to come through.
It imo will hit clubs like Wigan more who have a huge overseas contingent in their team we only have 5 in the squad pies have somewhere nearer 10 due to dubious interpretations of the quota rules .

Wigan don't pay their players in this way - well under Whelan they certainly didn't because he expected that teh tax man would come sniffing round sooner rather than later.

However, as it basically means that the clubs (Wire and Saints to name 2) that have paid their players this way have effectively been getting a 12.5% increase and advantage on their salary cap for the overseas contingent (typically the most expensive players).

Hardly in the spirit of the salary cap is it - employing tax evasion/avoidance schemes that the tax man is now investigating?????????

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 7:56 am  

i agree could be a good thing... if it means giving young players more of a chance i'd take a drop in standards, although whether losing king and putting in penny would be a drop in standards im not actually convinced!

the other side of the coin is that this seems more likely to affect the big players...the trent barrett and andrew johns category of player...who can have a positive impact on young kids and not the journeymen who are here because they can't get a run in the nrl and could quite happily be axed for the benefit of developing kids

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:07 am  

We've paid the players in accordance with a) the law and b) the salary cap/competition rules. If one or the other change then we'll have to react accordingly. I don't see how we can be criticised for being smart in the past and for being open and upfront now.

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:13 am  

Ian [77] wrote:

We've paid the players in accordance with a) the law and b) the salary cap/competition rules. If one or the other change then we'll have to react accordingly. I don't see how we can be criticised for being smart in the past and for being open and upfront now.

There is nothng against the law or in the salary cap rules to say that you can't renegotiate a contract partway though the season either...............

: Wed Apr 08, 2009 8:17 am  

Big Steve wrote:

There is nothng against the law or in the salary cap rules to say that you can't renegotiate a contract partway though the season either...............

Contract implies singular, not plural.

On the image rights issue, I would imagine the details were done in conjunction with a tax expert, doesn't exactly strike me as something done on a whim.

I wonder if anyone who is part of our organisation is experienced in paying foreign nationals, large sums, who temporarily reside in this country in the most tax effecient way?