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?

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'" I like the cut of his jib. Doubt he'll be getting a Christmas card from KashKow this year though.

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'" I like the cut of his jib. Doubt he'll be getting a Christmas card from KashKow this year though.

Because, whether the club is liable or not, there are better things for the money to be put towards at this point in time? First and foremost, a proper reserves competition!

Yep. A proper reserves comp. Training and pitch facilities for those reserves and academy (something often overlooked). But also, vitally, youth and junior development beyond the reserves and Academy. Since it's now the responsibility of the clubs. I bet it doesn't get funded to anywhere near where it should. Most clubs seem to think sending a couple of players to an amateur club a couple of times a year is junior development.

I've posted this on the Saints Forum, but I'll curse you all with it too.

I get what both people are driving at.

Koukash wants to increase big names in the league.
Mac wants to help the national side by giving allowances for club grown players.
The Cap wants to stop clubs spending beyond their own means.

In a way they all pull in differing directions. Now I'm not sure what the Marquee descriptor is and that does need to be nailed down. Otherwise it's just more money for some average Joe.

But I could see a way to combine all 3 elements.

1. Protect clubs fiances with a cap
2. Allow 'Marquee' signings
3. Keep clubs focused on the long term of player development for international games

Whilst Big Mac's proposal is laudable it does hand an advantage to SL incumbents. They have had more time to hold their own players. Naturally clubs lower down will have had pressure from above clubs to sell on their players. So any new club to the league would be at a disadvantage for a long period and may not survive long enough to get to a point where their junior set up matches long standing clubs.

I would not allow any player to be completely exempt from the cap. But newer entrants to the league could have say a higher Marquee player ratio.

Set the Salary cap at £2million.

Your Wigans/Saints/Leeds would have the ability to have 1 Marquee player only cost £100,000 on the club accounts. They would also be allowed to have say up to 10 club grown players cost again only £100,000 on the accounts.

This encourages teams to develop their own players.

However brand new entrants to the league would be allowed say 3 - 4 Marquee players again only costing £100,000 on the club cap as it is unlikely they would have 10 academy players at the very top standard on entry to the league.

But their Marquee allowance would drop by one player every 3 years. So by year 10, they would be at the same place as other mature clubs, developing their own players and not just buying in.

Going to either extreme gives too much to short termism or too much favour to the incumbents in the market place.

However, I still maintain that the overall club cap should be limited to £2million and any additional payment to a Marquee player or an academy grown player that goes over this £2million figure would need to come from outside the club accounts. Whether that be sponsorship, or owner payments.

So Koukash could have 3 marquee players currently. The Salford club would pay £100,000 of their wages, the rest comes from elsewhere. But the Salford club could not pay over £2million in total for the squad. In another 3 years they would be down to 2 marquee players, then 1 three years after that.
In the mean time they would need to build up their own academy players to replace these marquee players.