Well they employed someone specifically to do just that not so long ago, I'm assuming he's earning his salary somehow.

If clubs wanted to hide things from the RFL I'm sure they could. However it's a huge risk for the club, the player and the CEO of the club because if it's discovered then they're committing fraud. Not only could the RFL harshly punish the club and individuals, they could potentially be charged and other clubs could sue them for damages.

I doubt many if any club would be willing to take that risk, especially as most clubs can't really afford the wages they pay anyway.

Clubs have been known to do things in the quest for glory. Look at Melbourne, running two different sets of books in the clubs name in the hope no one checked. I'm pretty sure clubs will be looking for every possible opportunity to gain an advantage, players and their agents too.

The RFL employing 1 person has been mentioned. 1! That isn't enough resource to properly audit the clubs and players.

A company can't dispose of an asset in the way you describe, the tax man would have a field day!

The Wigan situation related to existing contracts, not new ones. It wasn't so much that contracts were backloaded but instead, that payments were deferred so that monies due to be paid in one salary cap year were pushed back to a subsiquent year, with Wigan using the deferred amount to pay Fielden when they were up the creek. The wording used at the time, IIRC, was that this was against "the spirit of" the salary cap - Wigan weren't technically in breach of paying too much to players that year, but that was because they deferred some of their contracted liabilities that year.

The Wigan situation probably isn't comparable to what may happen with Sandow. A better comparison is perhaps Leeds' re-signing of Lee Smith a few years back where Smith (reportedly) was paid very little for his first season back. Following Smith signing, Leeds lost Scott Donald, Matt Diskin and Greg Eastwood (all big earners) and I dare say some of that cash was worked into Smith's second year contract.

I'm not aware of any rule change that prevents a club doing this with any player, as long as the club meets all relevant regulations on NMW and (in the case of overseas players requiring visas) minimum salary requirements.

As others have mentioned Wigan got done for changing existing contracts so they payed several players less for that year and then could accommodate Fielden and stay under the cap. At the time it wasn't against the rules which is why they were charged with breaching the spirit of the cap. The rules were then changed to stop it happening again. Technically it was probably a bit unfair and if they had challenged it in court I expect they'd have won. S*** happens.

Front or back loading contracts is common and permissible and fairly common practice in the NRL (or at least it used to be, it's been a while since I read it) as long as it was the original agreed contract, I'm not sure about here though.

I think it would be against the spirit of the cap,

however the club takes 2 huge risks. First is the fraud as has been mentioned above, but the second is the Marquee player who gets the big money in year one deciding not to both for years 2 and 3. Buying out their own contract and then moving someone else for another pay day.

not a chance anyone is going for fraud. You would basically be suing someone for not colluding with you to keep wages down. It would be like suing the guy you burgled a house with for not giving you your share of the loot.

First thing that would happen if we had a Melbourne-esq situation is that one of the players involved would be throwing a lawsuit at the RFL for restraint of trade.

They could have done that for years, they don't as it's completely voluntary as to whether you are a RL player or not. You can get money in other trades if you want.

The clubs chose to play in a league system that has it as part of the rules, there is nothing to stop them starting their own league elsewhere under their own rules about wages.

I don't think we are too far apart other than im pretty sure those 'other players' deferred that payment by signing new contracts which were lower, and then another one to begin the next season, were higher. Deferments are already dealt with under the regs as they count in the year they are accrued, not the year paid so it wouldn't really make a difference without that. However the RFL decided that because they would have been due moneys under their old contract, it was the re-working of that same money into a contract at a later date which was against the spirit of the cap.

With Smith at Leeds, i think they signed him to a short term contract, and then to a long term contract. So whilst in practice it may have worked out like that. Officially he signed say a 6month contract at x amount, and then a new 3 year (or whatever it was) at Y amount

its completely voluntary to do any job. If the voluntary/involuntary nature of it was a deciding factor, no restraint of trade action could every be brought ever. You cannot have an involuntary contract, it couldn't be enforced.

Also the RFL's rules are subservient to the law. The RFL cannot hold clubs to rules which are against the law.

If Sandow had left the Eels this year he would still have expected him to pay the bulk of his remaining salary for this season. I can fully understand why Parra told him to sling his hook, as they'd have lost a player, have no real replacement mid season when there's still some hope, and have to pay him as well. Garbutt to Leeds was the same except Bennett wasn't going to use him this year so it made no difference if he played Qld Cup or SL.

If I recall correctly Blake Solly or someone in a similar position stated that every player in the world has a price, and if a club sign a player the RFL are knowledgable enough to know their salary or an approximation of it.

I think it's pretty easy to do, plenty of Fantasy Games do it, I bet in reality they aren't far wrong.

This would then be cross checked against what each club submits.

It's not rocket science.

I would have thought if a club wanted to cheat it would be easier than the example here, all you need to do is pay a player 50k through the clubs books and pay the rest into an overseas account NOT from the clubs books. Probably being done currently.

Fiddling the salary cap is one thing, fiddling the tax man (which this would be) is going to result in prison.

As I have just said, the RFL, better than pretty much everyone else here, can probably guess pretty closely the weekly/monthly/yearly salary of every player in top grade, so with a live cap or similar, they could approximate the amount a player would demand.

But it's not an issue if it's a foreign owned and located company paying a player for 'non-rugby related' jobs during the off season.... As long as the tax is paid in the relevant country it's not an issue..... It's effectively a 2nd job in the eye of the tax man, that's all, the player can notify and pay their aspect of the tax, it has nothing to do with the RFL and they can do nothing about it unless they can prove the company is owned by someone to do with the club.... The RFL cannot stipulate players aren't allowed 2nd jobs.

If clubs deliberately withhold salary cap information in order to gain an advantage then that is fraud. In the same if you don't tell your insurance company pertinent information when making a claim.

The Aussie police investigated Melbourne after their shenanigans but due to the high profile nature and political pressure from both Melbourne's owners and their number 1 fan it wasn't taken any further.

Over here there's no such situation to hold the police back, they'd love it. In the same way the UKBA went after RL imports with a vengeance and HMRC went after the image rights etc.

Don't let your dislike of the salary cap get in the way here, not reporting this kind of information is very, very serious and I can't see many clubs wanting to take that risk, especially as it only takes 1 disgruntled person to blow the whistle and there aren't the number of quality players around in SL to take a club from average to the top without it being blatantly obvious they're over the salary cap.

If it could be done, and avoid tax, my own employer (I'm an international assignee) would be doing it. In reality, if the UK tax office sees a guy working 9 months here for x and sees him earning more than that for a short overseas period, they're going to call foul.

Back from the tax man to the RFL, I believe the salary cap rules state any "second job" income also counts towards the cap.

Bit harsh if he has a property income or owns a part of a family business that is successful. Some players are capable of earning more outside of rugby, I listened to an interview with Ben Cockayne about his 'second' income and he clearly stated he makes MORE from that than RL.

That sort of thing isn't included. I doubt that Rob Burrow's physiotheraphy business is something that the salary cap auditors concern themselves with - unless Leeds Rhinos were making regular payments to that business.

The rules Richie alludes to issues such as sponsors (or other third parties) paying a player in return for benefits that could be related to the player's rugby activity (such as his image).

I believe that this was often used as a way to top-up player payments in the early days of the cap but now, those payments would typically count on cap. If Leeds Building Society wanted to pay Kevin Sinfield directly they could but if they plan to use him in a way that relies on his rugby playing activities (ie, "Leeds captain Kevin Sinfield endorses LBS's new account"icon_wink.gif, that counts on cap.

Similarly, I believe the employment of a player's partner also has salary cap impilications. That rule apparently changed after it transpired that a Mrs Renouf was the highest paid receptionist in the North West.

That's how I understand it too.

Re players wives - that is counted on the cap but clubs may still employ players wives either as an added benefit for players who have to move (their wife is guaranteed a job) or it can be better tax-wise for the player to have say £20k taxed at wife's tax rate rather than his own.

Insurance fraud is a specific offence. Lying isn't. Lying to gain an advantage through the SC would be no different to lying to gain an advantage through naming your 19 knowing there would be a change.

The SC holds no basis in the law. it is a rugby league rule, one which itself could very well be judged illegal (and as such, would not even be enforceable as a competition rule).

At worst there may be a claim for a breach of contract, but again, I don't think anyone is taking a case suing a party for not keeping to their contractual obligation to collude on bringing wages down.

As long as all payments are made paying the correct tax and NI, the government and police have literally no interest in investigating someone wages.

The simplest way would be to pay the wife or partner through another business. So for instance Caddick construction could pay Mrs Sinfield as much as they wanted. There is no legal obligation for Mrs Sinfield to disclose her earnings to the RFL and there is a legal obligation for Caddick Construction not to disclose that information and Mrs Sinfield would have a clean and cut case to sue Caddick Construction if they did disclose it to them without her permission.