www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/s ... L_Tax.html Bye bye. Or the clubs may fill the quota with more 'journeymen'.

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague/news/s ... L_Tax.html Bye bye. Or the clubs may fill the quota with more 'journeymen'.

I don' think this particularly affects Trinity in anyway way directly, however, if the bigger clubs are struggling to sign up top overseas talent due to the HMRC’s involvement then they may be more inclined to hold onto their juniors which is an area Wakefield have benefited from in the past.

St helens might have alot of problems now.

It appears all but 4 teams may be affected to a greater or lesser degree.

The 4 teams it is rumoured who have not used this loophole are Les Cats, Salford, Celtic and Wigan.

According to the RL Express Wire are already in deep facing a major tax bill as are 2 other unnamed teams.

I sometimes wonder why people at the clubs think they would get away with it for so long. Gordon Brown in his days as Chancellor went after football Arsenal being affected in a big way, and he sent the message that other sports would be next but it seems most did not listen to the warning and are now in some cases facing a heafty bill.

Wrong I'm afraid - but I have no idea of the extent!

it should certainly shake things up not sure which teams are implicated and which arent i wouldnt be so sure about wigan not being implicated either if theres a loophole and a cheat they will find it, unless mrs gleeson is down as the tea lady on 120,000 k per annum from now on ala mrs renouf or they have players playing for free again

I am surprised!

I wouldn’t have thought the image rights for the players who have represented Wakefield were worth that much to bother with an elaborate offshore payment scheme.

I do not think it is what they are "worth" ie the clubs do not expect to gain financially from the merchandising of that image, it is simply what the clubs have chosen to pay the player under that clause to be able to increase the wages outside of the cap/tax system.

At the time the football clubs were being targeted Dave Whelan was very vocal in stating Wigan (both football and rugby) would not use this loophole as it would not only affect his businesses away from professional sport but would also see clubs that did go down this route landed with a major tax bill, which it seems is one of the things he did get right at Wigan.

It is perhaps conccivable that the new administration may have changed there stance in the last 16months so Wigan may be involved also but due to the length of time they are potentially using this loophole for they would certainly not be facing a major bill if they had at all.

Seems like the clubs who have used this loophole for a while and signed bigname Aussies on big wages will be most badly affected, hence Warrington being the first named and also the reason why they were happy to cash in on one of there prized assetts.

3 out of 4 not bad . France have a totally different tax system to us. Infact rumours have it that their tax system
is so lax that the overseas players don't even pay tax. Thats why they don't use this loophole because they don't need to.

seems pretty sensible that HMRC would want to stop non-residents getting what is effectively earned income (earned in the UK), tax free offshore.

surprised they haven't sorted before now tbh

Had a thought that it could be something like that as I re-read the report. It will be interesting to see how this one pans out.

Would it not be a problem for the player more than the club? I'm no tax expert, but I pay my income tax, and if I don't pay enough, they would come to me, not those who pay me? Tax loopholes can be closed at every budget, and if a player signs a contract for, say, three years, then isn't it just bad luck for the player if the loophole is closed?

That's the bit I don't understand either. I could see the club as an employer being liable for more national insurance conributions, but tax? And assuming this tax loophole was legal at the time, can a retrospective claim for contributions be made?

I've never had to employ anyone to work for me, though, so I don't know what the situation is here, from the club/employer's perspective.

Maybe someone else with better knowledge can shed more light on this?

yes it does hit the player, therefore a 100k contract becomes less attractive than it was before and he stays/goes back to Oz, plays RU in France or whatever. It may be that the club has to increase its contract cost by 20% to attract the same player from overseas, for example.

also depends what was in the contract regarding the image right payments etc

there may also be circumstances whereby the employer (club) was responsible for deducting PAYE tax on previous earnings and didn't do so, this becomes the liability of the employer and not the employee.

I know it mentions in 1 article I have seen, that King and Monaghan could be looking at 12% reductions in there salary from now on.

Ok I may not understand it all, but everyone else pays full tax on there wages so why not them?

Quote ="adam9641"Ok I may not understand it all, but everyone else pays full tax on there wages so why not them?'" Not everybody, thats why clever accounts have a job. www.thisismoney.co.uk/tax-advice ... page_id=77

Quote ="adam9641"Ok I may not understand it all, but everyone else pays full tax on there wages so why not them?'" Not everybody, thats why clever accounts have a job. www.thisismoney.co.uk/tax-advice ... page_id=77

i find it strange that we (cas) would be using this tactic to much effect as we are spending no where near the cap limit rumoured £500k short (well spent £1.3m is the cap not £1.8m?)

so seems strange that we would use it as would wakey if neither club feel they are able to spend to the full £1.8m. unlike wire, saints hull kr Hull Fc (i would ut my mortgage on wigan being one club who do it or somehting very similar)

Maybe in the past when both clubs' revenue restricted the amount they were allowed to spend up to the maximum?

Again I thought this as strange too but as john says it could be some clubs used this method of payment to offer a financial package that is/was more attractive to overseas players because of the loophole. Said club could still offer a salary of 50K with or without the loophole, but with it the take home pay is much more then it otherwise would’ve been.

I admit I’m out of my depth with this issue so that analogy may be wrong.

cap or no cap, if you could save tax or reduce the wage bill you would wouldn't you?

Because in the end it catches up to you, as is the case at the moment.

pretty sure the clubs will have received professional advice in respect of any schemes. They are hardly likely to come up with the idea themselves

what i am saying is that this is not something designed to stay under the cap only, it is basically tax avoidance (don't confuse with evasion) which any employer/company/individual would udertake if it was available

HMRC probably looking to close the loophole that exists but without reading into too much detail, i doubt they could be retrospective.

Its appears that is the case hence the likes of Warrington being handed heafty bills from HMRC and 2 other clubs in talks with them regarding there payments according to the League express.

Arenal got stung with a massive retrospective bill not too long back somewhere in the region on £11million +.