May mean that as Macca said earlier in the season, we still have money if the right player becomes available.

I can't see them upping the cap in the near future when teams like Cas, Wakey and Hull KR are doing so well. Look at Wire; the money isn't helping them. The vote would probably go:

For Increase: Stay the same:
Leeds Bradford
Wire Cas
Wigan Wakey
Hull FC Hull KR
Huddersfield Salford
Saints Celtic
Harlequins



Not sure about Catalans, but I think an increase would be voted against by the majority.

What is perhaps more interesting is the fact that the RFL, as the RFU has done, will work with the Inland Revenue to find a way out of this. It's fairly obvious that if you were a Rooney or a Gerrard or Beckham then your Image value is considerable. It could be said the same about Johnny Wilkinson but the Tax people are looking at people like Michael Monaghan who cleary have no Image value and are using it as a tax loophole. Now here comes the crunch.

Clubs affected are having to submit their books to the Inland Revenue who will then sit down with the RFL to sort it out. The RFL will then find out which clubs have been using the 'Singapore Sling' to 'cheat' the Salary Cap. My information is that it is quite a lot of them! The RFL will have that information but, given their reluctance to penalise certain clubs - because they have been obsessed with getting rid of the Big Four - will they penalise these clubs now for years of deliberately cheating or will they sweep it under the carpet. Don't hold you breath waiting for punishment if Leeds are found to have cheated.

Possibly, Hudds have got a bit of cash now - Signed Fulton and are in talks with Fien for next season.

it'll be interesting to see how many clubs can persuade players to take a pay cut so they can fit in the cap when they have to start paying tax/NI. Players will rightly claim they have a contract so we might either see quite a lot of fringe players being released to pay for the difference or a couple of high profile overseas players looking for a new club next year.
If the RFL write off past indiscretions as being within the understanding of the rules at the time and start policing it from now will we see more players available mid season?

I refer the honourable gentleman to the posts I have made here and elsewhere on this subject earlier, when I've tried to explain it.

Once again - its NOT a loophole that's been closed - you need legislation for that. Its certain clubs interpretation of the tax law not according with that of HMRC. And HMRC appear to have won the argument (its not a new issue - been going on for a few years in professional sport). That means we are talking underdeducted and underpaid tax and NIC going back several years.

The issue now appears to be resolving the amounts that implicated clubs have to pay - and I stress, for BACK tax - and resolving a common framework that HMRC is happy with going forward.

Which means that implicated clubs have effectively - and with the benefit of what we (think) we know now - been cheating the cap over the years, even if they claim (or even believe) that they were operating within the rules. But, as I keep saying, I don't think for one minute the RFL will take retrospective action, regardless of the moral arguments.

And, as I keep saying...interesting times.

See my post above.

Its not a loophole. It appears to have been shown by HMRC to be tax evasion. That's cheating?

But some have cheated. Image Rights have to be included in the declaration to the RFL. These are not being questioned, just the amount given to players - the percentage. But the ones who have used EBT's and not declared them to the RFL will now be found out.

It would depend on whether Leeds were significantly implicated in this activity. If they were not, then I would tend to agree. If they WERE, then they (and every other significantly-implicated club) would need the increase to retain their existing players on the same packages, and to continue offering packages of similar level going forward (especially where contracts have already been entered into).

FWIW, I've said repeatedly that I'd be surprised and disappointed if Leeds are heavily implicated - does not seem the sort of thing Hetherington would want to be involved with, given his very high moral stance and strongly-experessed views on similar issues.

Correction: a club under the cap might well be able to accommodate the increase within their cap space, of course - especially if they left some space in anticipation of - or as insurance against - the issue crystalising.