Thats it, its the upper limit for tax free redundancy payment. I was commenting on what I thought Crookes had been paid if thats what you were thinking. Sorry if it came across as that!

I think he just stated it as if the payoff was in fact redundancy and it went over 30k, not the actual figure he would get lol

I'm not an HR bod either, but I did go through a redundancy with Corus. Essentially, you cannot make a person redundant - it is the role that goes.

Therefore, we would be saying that there is no longer a requirement at the club for a 5th choice centre (or whatever). All people whom that might effect (Platt, Sykes, Whitehead, Lulia, Purtell etc. etc.) would then have to go through the same redundancy procedure before it's decided who is to leave.

I'm not being facetious here - I found the thought of this procedure quite amusing when applied to sportsmen. The interviews would have made great viewing (so Paul, what do you think you bring to the team?).

I'm sure you would be spot on with a compromise agreement, as with Glenn Hall.

If you read the RFL Operational Rules, it makes clear reference to the standard "RFL Compromise Agreement" that I think is meant to be used by default whenever a club terminates a player's contract.

Any contractual payments will be taxable. That means if a player still had say a year left on his contract and the club paid him that year - whether in the form of a PILON (pay in lieu of notice) or as salary up front - then that payment is generally taxable and subject to NIC, as there is a contractual commitment to pay.

What is NOT taxable is compensation for breach of contract (up to £30k). So the usual approach is to terminate the contract without notice (since paid notice would be taxable) and pay a sum (tax-free up to £30k) in compensation. Since the breach of contract by the employer frees the employee from his own obligations under the contract (including the obligation to keep his trap shut and not bad-mouth the club), you get him to sign a Compromise Agreement where, in consideration of him receiving the compensation payment he undertakes to do (or not do) certain things. He has to receive independent legal advice, paid for by the employer, confirming he does not lose anything by signing, before the agreement becomes legally effective.

The advantage of the above route is that it costs the employer a lot less to get the same net payment to the employee. Its an area full of pitfalls though, and HMRC are always very interested in the paperwork and precise details of each such case. Been there, done that numerous times.

I don't think its the same concept for fixed term contracts. I've been through a similar process at my work though. Weird isn't it how you everyone always knows who's getting sacked before the "process"....

Stul is pretty well correct mate. That's why its done through the compromise agreement route, as Hall was.

Do you mean they can't just sack you for being Scottish any more? It's political correctness gone mad.

I can still be legally killed with a crossbow from the castle walls at Berwick (or whats left of them)...