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.

That's my information!

Mmm...beats Barracudas.

I shall agree with you there mate now I'm a little better informed. If it is found out to be Tax Evasion then I wholeheatedly believe the clubs who have done it should be made to repay any outstanding debts. Surely though it shouldn't have taken this long for HMRC to realise teams we're doing this. And if as you say clubs have been doin it for years, why havent they broached the issue before??? Im a little skeptical about the whole debarcle if Im honest...

You are having so much fun with this. Everywhere I go on the forums - there you are.

Probably as much fun as FA did with the Harris case.

As a SE person myself - tax is not always boring but

Tax + RL + HMRC + Possible rule violations (some clubs) + scandal + possible penalties + finger pointing + possible vindication for other clubs = as you succinctly put it - wow!

You might suppose that; I could not possibly comment...

Seriously, though - we learnt from the Harris case debacle that it can be dangerous to speculate when we lack some key facts - and in that case it sure seems we did. And I remain very angry with at least one individual over that.

In THIS case, I strongly suspect that some clubs other than us will be in some difficulties over all this right now; but I've yet to see it demonstrated that we are not ourselves implicated. I'd be very surprised if we were significantly exposed, not least because of the comparison of the relative perceived quality (and therefore probable cost) of squads; your use of the word "vindicated" was interesting. But I'd feel a lot happier with a few more hard facts to work with, and to be more sure that we need not worry overmuch.

It would seem to be a fairly simple task for the Bulls to issue a denial if we aren't caught up in it.

Would it be a simple majority vote (what constitutes a vote etc) or 2/3 majority? Can anyone remember the voting system used when the penalties for salary cap breach were increased - from 2/4/6 to 4/8/12 points a couple of years ago?

I know. That's one thing that's concerning me.

But it looks like the clubs have handed this issue over to the RFL to try and sort out on a global basis with HMRC. If that's the case, maybe all the clubs have agreed (or been told to agree) to keep their traps shut and close ranks so as not to prejudice those negotiations?

Dunno - it may be in the Operational Rules somewhere - if anyone fancies a trawl?

Wasn't this 'off shore payments' issue brought to light when St Helens 'allegedly' offered a contract to Sonny Bill Williams? I seem to remember a lot of accusations and denials at the time...about 2-3 years ago?

There are a number of "off-shore issues", and they go back a lot further. Didn't someone report quite a bit ago that a certain Pie player, stated to be playing for free, was actually being paid offshore? Allegedly. Think it was in a paper and don't remember any defamation actions over it, but I may be wrong.

I've had an operational rules trawl - is a simple majority. The votes are divvied up with a formula depending on the proportion of SL clubs to NL clubs present so that (for example) the 14 votes of SL clubs equal the 20 votes of NL clubs. BARLA gets 3 votes. A few other organisations get a vote as well.

I don't know if they are having a purely SL discussion if they could limit the voting to the SL clubs only