Reading the League Express this morning about Matt King at Warrington and his views on big name aussies heading over here it said this




Any ideas on what that actually means?

I think it means the clubs insist the players image belongs to them and therefore limits any sponsorship or promotional stuff the player can make money from for example Jon Wilkin and Steeden and Kev Sinfield with Optimum.

I remember Jon Goddard (I think it was him) having an issue with it a few years back, cant remember why.

If I was paying the players the money they are getting I think I would want a cut of all image rights or sponsorship deals too, cant fault Wire or Rovers for that.

Looks like Matt King's promotional work for the Simpsons movie has been a waste of time!

that caused you any problems with Matty Dale ?

No mate, neither Featherstone or the Chinese National team were bothered

It is more likely to mean that his original contract (where, incidentally, we believe Wire gazumped Bulls...) included a very substantial element for his image rights. Funnily enough, HMRC have been challenging these, since contracts structured in this way save a load of tax (I will explain how if anyone is that interested), so the club can get a lot more player for a given salary cap spend. It is widely assumed around the game that Wire are a club that are especially exposed to back tax assessments because of this tactic.

It is also speculated...shall we say...that Wire have now had to retreat from this strategy, because of the HMRC investigations, and have said the tax problem is the players' so certain players have been landed with a significant after-tax pay cut. And they were not happy. Allegedly.

Maybe this has happened at your place too?

There is of course the related issue, which is that if HMRC are successful then there will be tax and NIC to "gross up". Which will mean that the salary cap cost for affected players for prior years will suddenly go up a lot. Which means that some clubs will by implication have breached the salary cap for prior years...

No takers?.......

So the implication is rovers and warrington's overseas players may be hit with a lrgere than expected tax bill and/or receive less than they expected?

Plus salary cap breach implications. Although even if technically this were the case, would have thought it unlikely that sanctions would be forthcoming given that the live cap means this sort of thing is supposed to be audited.

You wish!

It is actually a potential implication for those player whose contracts pre-date the change in policy by HMRC. The article seems to clearly indicate that Rovers no longer structure contracts with an image rights element so newer signings will be unaffected.

I doubt it's the players who will be persued by HMRC, it will be clubs that they go after for any shortfall in income tax & NI contributions.

IIRC the tax position of image rights was mentioned as one of the reasons that Rovers' accounts were filed late last year as they were waiting for clarification from HMRC

I think we have all wondered how Warrington can have the players they have.

Why should I care? I pay my taxes so won't lose any sleep over anyone else paying their fair share

But everyone else bar Crusaders and Wakefield filed on time, some specifically mentioning the players image rights issue in the notes to the accounts (Leeds and Wigan at least). So not a reason not to file.