Quote: Adeybull "And you think it actually NEEDS a lot of players? Think again!
If - hypothetically - a club had on its books a couple of overseas marquee players who, say, could demand a net take-home income of £250k p.a (that is about AUD 370k), if a club paid them what it took to achieve that in pure salary (or cars or houses or whatever) those two players alone would use up £970k of the salary cap! £485k needed to get £250k net, from a back-of envelope calculation.
If, just say, both of those players' agents cut an image rights deal of £160k each, payable to their offshore personal service company, those payments could be made gross. Furtehrmore, since they were non-doms, they would not be liable to UK tax unless they received income fropm their companies AND it was remitted to the UK. The business paying for the image rights might even be totally unconnected with the club's owner, and not doing it as a "you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" job (you never know) and may even get good value for money out of it (I was told, for example, that Harris used to do promotional work for Publico two nights a week, but it was only what I was told).
Now, to get the players up to £250k net, the club NOW only has to pay a salary of £150k each.
Yes, that's right.
So the two mega-marquee players now cost only £300k in terms of the salary cap.
That frees up a massive £670k of salary cap!!!
Which sort of goes a long way towards paying all the OTHER players quite a lot more than could otherwise be the case. And you still get two marquee players.
Ok, the above is simplistic, and it assumes the player can keep the offshore funds free from Aus Tax when he gets home (Singapore Sling, anyone...?) but I hope it serves to demonstrate why this is potentially far, far from just an issue on the periphery.
Like I said, you wouldn't HAVE to do it with every player; just a handful who can legitimately claim to have an image worth decent money.'"
I'm on record as being in complete agreement with you on this one Adey - I seem to recall you putting me on your Christmas card list after a discussion about it on the VT last season, although you've probably since removed me following my frothing about Odsalgate.
I would be absolutely flabbergasted if the clubs with wealthy owners aren't using the same wheezes that people of that ilk have always used to stay several steps ahead of HMRC and by extension, light years ahead of whatever system the RFL uses to monitor the so-called 'salary cap.' It's as plain as day that some clubs are fielding squads of significantly higher monetary value than others whilst both would claim to be spending the cap; the difference is that the clubs with wealthy businesses backing them have all the connections, expertise and mechanisms already in place to get money into some of their players bank accounts by means other than a straightforward salary payment and furthermore, to maximise the proportion of the money that said players were able to keep hold of, by using tax-efficiency schemes.
It can sound a bit sour-grapey to moan about the clubs with wealthy sugar-daddies, or rather the lack of same at your own club, but I'm with you on this one; the current situation creates a two-tier SL in ways that goes far beyond the obvious and that in turn fuels the arrogant nonsense that some people spout about reducing to the league to 10 and casting adrift the clubs that can't compete.
Having said all that - would I like our very own Mr Burns, a la Shuddersfield? You bet I would.
