According to some are the new sponsers of SL next season looks like the RFL couldn't find nobody else but at least the RFL have got a sponser

Well i have no idea who the RFL did or did not want, maybe thats the sponsor they have been looking for all along.

Have you seen the Phony Pharoah's potty ramblings on the casforum?

If that's really him, I can't help but wonder how the hell he built a successful business - it's downright embarassing.

It's what Probiz actually do that means I wouldn't want them as SL sponsors. RL is at the end of the day a "working class" sport and this companies main business seems to be providing tax efficiency schemes to those wealthy enough not to need to benefit from them.

All this at a time when the country is on its knees and fans of RL clubs will be losing their jobs or finding it difficult to make ends meet.

The guy seems good at throwing his money around but no one seems to know where it comes from. Was it Notts county or forest who had a simillar benefactor a few years back and it all fell down like a pack of cards.

Rumor I heard was Eddie Stobart.

What a load of Rubbish. The guy is interested in sport and has a number of sponsorships with Football teams and Cricket Clubs up and down the country. The RFL are more than happy to be associated with PROBIZ (world club challenge) nothing to do with what they do, it's simply down to the fact that he's the main sponsor of CTRLFC. Pathetic really!!!

In your opinion its a load of rubbish, but I can assure you it has nothing to do with Probiz being your main sponsor. The term tax efficiency was used in the loosest form, as it would appear to me that they enable suitably wealthy people to avoid paying their dues by exploiting loopholes in the system. Nothing illegal in that I am sure you will say, but in the current economic climate when the vast majority of people are struggling, there is something morally not right about a company who makes its money in this fashion - which ultimately means the likes of you and me end up paying more to bridge the shortfall.

Apart from it's readily available how he got his wealth, how much he's worth and why he's throwing money at sports.

PROBIZ will have offered the most money for the sponsorship, so there's no problems with them being the sponsor of the league.

Surely the RFL have to consider more than just the money on offer when selecting a sponsor?

Im not sure what your point is...? You don't think Probiz are a big enough name for SL or Probiz are somehow dodgy?

Maybe the RFL should have asked Glover to consider 'West Yorkshire Windows Super League'?

I couldn't give a monkeys who sponsors SL but lets be honest unless your a hardcore fan or at least follow the game, you wouldn't have the foggiest who Probiz is, just gives the impression imo that Super League is small fry.

Not really, with him owning a SL team and all that.

Nothing immoral at all.
I would imagine a good percentage of supporters are self employed or directors of businesses and use the services of an accountant and the accountant will ensure they are tax efficient.

Why do you think it would be a Castleford thing? Get a grip you imbecile, Probiz do sponsor other clubs in the RFL, such as Wigan where they are an associate (means not the main) sponsor and at Halifax (you remember them, the club that bailed you out last season when your clueless club turned up for a televised game with the wrong kit) where Probiz are the main sponsor. So as you can see it is not likely to be a CTRLFC thing at all.

Going back to the main point of the thread a sponsor is a sponsor. If they are prepared to money in then it should be good enough for us. Even though some people still don't get it as a governing body the RFL are not in a position to be beating potentially better sponsors off with a stick. Just as long as there is no conflict of interest as defined by the RFL rules then I don't see the problem.

I'd stick to your own forum pal, you are regarded as a joke in here. I suppose this is some more inside info that you have aqquired.

Thats your opinion and your entitled to it. As I said I used the phrase tax efficient in the loosest form as I suspect "avoidance" is more the case.

As someone who pays a considerable amount of my wages out in various forms of tax, I personally resent the fact that their are significantly wealthier people out there then me, who pay far less as a proportion of their income in taxes because they have schemes available to them to exploit loopholes and I also resent the companies who provide them with the vehicles to do the same.

These schemes in reality only work for those in a certain position and IMO are therefore by their nature divisive, because the shortfall in taxes collected from those who participate in such schemes has to be made up somewhere else (eg the average working person paying more in taxes or people in the public sector losing their jobs).

My point was that you should look to align the activities of your sponsors with the values of you as an organisation and those of your client base. Not questioning whether they are big enough but whether they are the "right fit".

That reads like you are just miffed that you yourself cant do it.

So if you had the opportunity to legally retain more of your earned income you wouldnt take it?

The point I have made has nothing to do with me being miffed about not being able to do it myself. As I have said, the fact that it is only available to people in a certain position makes it divisive. I don't mind paying a fair contribution to the system, my problem being that such schemes prevent this from being the case and average working joes like me are the easy option to make up the shortfall and are likely to be squeezed further as unemployment and therefore the benefit bill continues to rise.

I perhaps should have added in my initial response that the fact the government fail to close some of these loopholes is also part of the problem, but they seem scared by the threats from the mega wealthy to move abroad if the tax regime is tightened up.

As for your second point, IMO the situation is similar to that lawyer who gets off all the celebs from driving offences by exploiting flaws in the process. They have committed the offences and it is therefore IMO morally wrong that they get off purely because of who they can afford to represent them.

I'm not overly concerned at the nature of his business - I just don't like his badly-worded, daft sounding eulogies to himself, proclaiming his plans to unleash RL on the Middle East and make <insert whichever club he's talking about that day> into global brands.

He comes across as a self-aggrandizing ego-maniac, with a propensity to talk utter ballcocks - his performance on the field prior to our match against them last season was positively cringeworthy; I felt sorry for Adrian Vowles, who must have wanted to disappear up his own arris.

The second point required a simple yes or no answer.

We are clearly not going to agree.

However,the schemes(which is probably the wrong way of describing most of them) are available to many people outside of the mega rich and celebs.It just comes down to a personal choice of if you want to take the associated gambles that come with reducing your tax bill.
eg,people switching from employed status to becoming a partner in an LLP,essentially making them self employed,Tax gains to be had,but lose your employment rights.

It doesn't really come down to a personal choice though does it?

For example, public sector employees can't ask their employer to take them off the books and retain their services as consultants going forward; neither can the vast majority of people who work for large organisations.

I understand your position, but I think your simplifying the situation to an unreasonable degree.

Which is why i said many people, not all.

Turfedout, your right that overall on this topic we won't agree, but no harm in some good old fashioned and reasonable debate.