Why have we now invented that they are committing tax fraud?

It would be very simple.

Im a club owner, I own the My club, and a multitude of companies, some as joint ventures, some as PLC's some as sole owner, some as shareholder.

I pay player A £100k, i pay all his tax, NI and everything all above board and taxed correctly. The player and club declares to the RFL that this is how much they earn and this is how much it costs on the Cap.

Through one of my other companies, i pay Player A's wife £200k. I pay tax, NI and everything in this. The RFL asks player A's wife to declare her earnings, she says "sod off Mr Solly, im not an RL player, my earnings are my private information and nothing to do with you". The RFL approach my company I say " Mr Solly, i have a legal obligation to keep this information private, I cannot disclose my employees private information to you, please go away"

It's not a question of fault. And the incentives already exist - but it is very hard to replicate the fanbase of Leeds and Wigan. Or achieve what Warrington have without significant initial 'investment'. I don't think there's a good case for stopping other clubs' benefactors building up their team/club, however they see fit. Now, you can extend that logically to a 'scrap the cap entirely' argument. Which is fair enough. Entrenching status at a fairly random snapshot moment in the game's history, isn't IMO. You're asking clubs to work harder, while tying their hands.
What the RFL have done already is made it so any spending on players' wages beyond a certain % of income has to be covered by directors putting cash in to buy new shares. Which is sensible and would work well with your model.

That sounds like the same sort of rhetoric people throw at benefits claimants!

The only thing that system would do is allow certain clubs to maintain the status quo. My club, Salford, have obviously had to have a lot of money thrown at us to get to where we are at the moment and things are starting to be put in place to allow us to start increasing revenue. We've secured increased sponsorship (apparently there are also representatives from over 50 businesses attending the game tonight against Saints) and with the team hopefully turning around its recent on field fortunes, we can hopefully bring in better deals, more fans and money.

If your idea came to fruition there would be no Marwan Koukash involved in rugby league. It wouldn't be worth big money investors coming into the game because they wouldn't be able to challenge the top clubs. In modern sport for success you need to be spending money and in rugby league you need to be spending pretty much up to the cap. Your idea would simply mean those select clubs continuing to pull away from the chasing pack. Limiting what can be spent like you suggest would be damaging to the game. Note that that doesn't mean I don't agree with having a salary cap, because despite the fact that Koukash would get rid of it if he had his way, I still think we need it.

In that scenario, the wife would have to declare her earnings to the government. Rfl requests income tax info for the house of <player> from the government. Compare to financial statements, and salary cap declaration. Any mismatch investigate further. It is tax fraud, if and only if, players wife doesn't declare her earnings from the club. Else it's regular old salary cap cheating.

I'm not saying it's impossible to do it through this method, but it has to be a little bit more complex than that. Else do you not think someone would already be doing it?

Also, given that Wigan "breaking the spirit of the cap" is considered by some on here to be one of the greatest crimes of super league history (rivalled only by joynts "voluntary" tackle) - why are we now trying to get around it?

The GOvernment are disclosing the earnings and tax status of people to the RFL? HMRC cant go around giving private information to the RFL.

Besides, the players wife isnt hiding payments from the club, she doesnt get any payment from the club. She gets payment from an entirely seperate company, which had no connection with the club.

Nope but players can request them to be disclosable if for example, part of the registration required so (I have no idea whether it is required, but I know it is in some professions (politics being one). And as i said, if a separate company is paying his wife, then further investigation into the company paying and what she does for the company (kpmg can request that info as an auditor, and though you don't believe it, they do have to answer that question.) - regular salary cap cheating.

If it was that simple, cut out the wife set up <players name> limited, declare the player is earning £1 and pay the rest through <players name> ltd.

Except you have made a false declaration to the RFL. Because the rules stipulate you include the payment through your other company to the players wife.

[iE1:5:2 Wherever salary or other benefits are expressed as being paid, payable or Accruing:

5.2.1 “to a Player”, such expression will be deemed to include payments that are paid, payable or Accrue:

to the Player himself;
for the benefit of the Player;
to, or for the benefit of, the spouse, partner, relative or trustee of the Player;
to, or for the benefit of, any person or business entity associated directly or indirectly with the Player;
in satisfaction of all or part of a debt owed by the Player;
to, or for the benefit of, a Licensed Player Agent or other Agent for services rendered on behalf of the Player;
at, or pursuant to, the direction of the Player; and/or
such other transactions as the RSCM determines should be treated as payments to a Player;
5.2.2 “by a Club”, such expression shall be deemed to include payments and other benefits that are paid, payable or Accrue:


by the Club itself;
on behalf of the Club;
by, or on behalf of, any person, business or entity associated or affiliated with the Club (including, without limitation, other sporting clubs, whether linked by common management, ownership, control, directorships, company officers, shareholding, undertaking or otherwise);
by, or on behalf of, a sponsor or other commercial partner of the Club; and/or
such other cases as the RSCM determines should be treated as payments by the Club.[/i


Plus you would be in breach of this clause.

[i3.1.7 Each Party who is subject to the Regulations must not assist, encourage, aid, abet, cover up, or have any other type of complicity in, any breach by any other Party of any of Clauses 3.1.1 to 3.1.6 (inclusive).
(a) Failure to comply with Clause 3.1.7 is not a Strict Liability Offence. In other words, intent, knowledge, negligence or other fault must be demonstrated in order to establish a breach of Clause 3.1.7.
[/i

Would a responsible club owner put the ownership of their club and the SL status of their club at risk in such a fashion?
I don't think they would. There may be tinkering around the edges, but I don't believe there to be wholesale abuse of the system. To start with clubs don't have the money to pay lots more in wages.

Also, if it's so easy to break the salary cap, why aren't more clubs doing it and to a larger extent? Why do players complain of poor wages?

Neither the RFL nor KPMG can demand SHE discloses HER situation, they have no leverage, they can't punish her, she has nothing to do with them. THey can't punish him because he hasnt done anything wrong, and they can't punish the club becasue they have no control over what Mrs Player X does.

KMPG and the RFL certainly hold no sway over the company, for whom it would be illegal to disclose this information. Its not only that this company doesnt have to disclose this information (what are the RFL going to do if i dont? this company doesnt own a club, it has sod all to do with the RFL) it would actually be an offence for them to do so.

In practice what you are proposing is that the RFL can demand access to the financial information of anyone connected to the player, and demand an audit of any company which a club owner/director is connected. That really is as crazy as it sounds. It not only wouldn’t happen (there isn’t a chance on god green earth that a company would allow their books to be audited by KPMG because one of their owners also owned an RL club and the RFL want to check wages), they are legally obliged to stop it from happening (the company you work for cannot legally disclose your salary to anyone but you and the tax man) it isn’t practical (Caddick developments employs hundreds of staff, has a £65m turnover, £50m in assets. Can you imagine the costs they pay for their audits? It aint cheap) may not even be possible even if all RL related parties were agreed (Why would an owner/director of a company allow an audit for the RFL's purposes because another owner/director also was an owner/director of an RL club?)

im not saying its not against the rules. Im saying you would have no way of proving it, nor do i think that those rules would stand up if challenged on the basis that Caddick Construction isnt Paul Caddick, and they cannot be restricted by the RFL. Leeds Rhinos arent Caddick COnstruction and they cannot be punished for the actions of Caddick Construction.

If you read those rules carefully, it pretty much explains that the only to punish someone for transgressing those rules is if they admit the offence and provide evidence against themselves.

[iintent, knowledge, negligence or other fault must be demonstrated in order to establish a breach of Clause [/i i.e it is up to the RFL to not only prove that Company X paid Mrs Player X, but they would need to prove that they did it in a deliberate attempt to circumvent the cap, and were aware they were breaking the rules. Or were so negligent as to be culpable.

That would be incredibly, unbelievably difficult to make stick, especailly as two of the major parties involved (the secondary company and Mrs Player X) are under no obligation whatsoever to co-operate.

for the same reasons clubs shouldnt be the ones setting the cap. Would you pay out more if you thought you could get away with less?

Chasing pack? Pulling away? We've had salary cap now how long and the same clubs are no closer than they've ever been, some have actually gone backwards, franchising made them lazy, they regressed knowing the leaders were always being held back.

If the Leeds of this world had less restraints then the others would just simply have to work harder rather than sitting on their laurels.

SmokeyTA of course it is possible but I don't think even you believe it to be happening in 2014 in Super League.

So this whole discussion is rather pointless.

Pretty much the par for the RLFans forum then ?

Caddick Construction wouldn't be punished or restricted in any shape or form by the RFL. Leeds Rhinos would.

But again, the club ARE under an obligation to co-operate. Also the RFL don't need to find the club in breach. They can simply raise the salary cap value of that player to the level they believe it to be.

So hang on, it's incredibly easy to get around the cap, but no-one, including the wealthy and ambitious Dr Koukash (and Moran, Pearson etc) who has said he wants to spend more money aren't doing it because they don't want to spend more money?

The rhinos in that example can cooperate to the utmost extent. They could cooperate as much as possible. The RFL wouldn't find anything.

And the rhinos can't be punished for what the RFL think a different company did (but don't have much evidence).

And to answer your question I think a lot of teams are spending much more than you think.

I have no issue with this in the slightest.

The reason why I am against a change to the Cap is because it would leave more clubs than currently vulnerable.

However, if you could allow clubs to pay up to a cap and anything else on top is covered by an owner, I would be more than happy with that.

My objection to changing the cap is that it leaves clubs vulnerable when the owner gets bored, runs out of cash, finds that others have the same money and all he/she has done is inflate wages.

If for example the cap stated a club can only outlay £2 million on players, but an owner may suppliment those wages outside of the clubs accounts, I'm happy as larry with that. The club gains income from more fans, but is not exposed to the costs of an owner who may not be there to pick up the tab, if it does not work out.

If it does work out the owner reaps the rewards through the clubs profits.

Third party sponsorship should also be allowed, if say a blue chip company has a director who supports a club and wants to pay the wages of a player, why not? It doesn't hurt the club finiances in any way.

Again no issue with that in the slightest

Is that not what koukash is basically asking for,but instead of a company paying the players wages he would be paying them himself,so even if he pulled out of Salford he would still be liable for that or them players wages?

He has just said he would pay £200K for another teams 'golden ticket'.

Whilst I dread bringing this back up, saints have released a statement regarding the marquee exemption vote: www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/3849? Strong words

Whilst I dread bringing this back up, saints have released a statement regarding the marquee exemption vote: www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/3849? Strong words

Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"Whilst I dread bringing this back up, saints have released a statement regarding the marquee exemption vote: www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/3849? Strong words'" He's got a point. We can't afford an academy that cost us £30k but we can afford a player that cost £500k!

Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"Whilst I dread bringing this back up, saints have released a statement regarding the marquee exemption vote: www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/3849? Strong words'" He's got a point. We can't afford an academy that cost us £30k but we can afford a player that cost £500k!

Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"Whilst I dread bringing this back up, saints have released a statement regarding the marquee exemption vote: www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/3849? Strong words'" Wise words from Mr Mcmanus. I admire the good doctors enthusiasm for improving the game (and his cheque book) but there are more pressing matters.

Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"Whilst I dread bringing this back up, saints have released a statement regarding the marquee exemption vote: www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/3849? Strong words'" Wise words from Mr Mcmanus. I admire the good doctors enthusiasm for improving the game (and his cheque book) but there are more pressing matters.

Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"Whilst I dread bringing this back up, saints have released a statement regarding the marquee exemption vote: www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/3849? Strong words'" Wow, sanctimonious in the extreme.

Quote ="Magic Superbeetle"Whilst I dread bringing this back up, saints have released a statement regarding the marquee exemption vote: www.saintsrlfc.com/news/page/3849? Strong words'" Wow, sanctimonious in the extreme.

Which part exactly????

If the team isn't liable for any debt then seriously what's the problem?