Meh - speculation as to which clubs use these and to what extent.

Anyway, if all of those things were permitted under the cap, then more fool those who didn't bother IMO.

And if all or some were not, then more fool those now having their collars felt by HMRC . . .

Anyway, back to the original topic . . .

Your team at the moment isn't exactly brimming with youngsters, throwing a couple in (a la Ainscough and Tomkins at wigan when the chips were down) isn't going to do them any harm.

It's a cop out as far as I'm concerned and rather than interpreting the "we're not playing as we're coached" line as a prompt to shift blame from the coach to the players, I would ask myself why the coach isn't able to get the players to listen to and act upon his instructions (which after all is his job).

I really like Steve Mac, but I think he's a little out of his depth. Someone made a very interesting point on here recently when they said it would be intriguing to hear an (honest) assessment from the likes of Menzies and Morrisson.

I would think that the clubs involved are more concerned about the impact this will have on contracts going forward than a (potential) retrospective tax bill.

If they were looking into these schemes they obviously wanted to pay more cash to players, so doing so (be it in the form of extra tax or otherwise) is unlikely to be too much of a pain.

I'd be very surprised if it was applied retrospectively anyway, but that's another matter.

Adey will know far more than me about this, but I'd bet a LOT of money that HMRC 100% WILL apply anything that applies retrospectively. They are not noted for "letting people off".

I also don't follow why having to find money for past underpayments is any better than having to find money for future tax etc payments, the past money will have to be found, the future money will also have to be found.

If anything the future money is easier to deal with, as contracts can always be varied, but what's due is due.

Not if tax laws change and you can no longer apply the old rules to existing contracts to get under the cap - you're left with disgruntled overseas players having to take a "paycut" since a greater proportion than promised of their pay is going to the taxman.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but my clear understanding is that payments were agreed with players on the basis of what specific amount the player would receive. And in HMRC's eyes, if the sum paid is taxable, then it is deemed to have been a net sum, and the employer is deemed to have deducted the relevant tax - but failed to pay it over.

Whether the player in future "had to" take a pay cut would depend entirely on how the contract was worded.

...and by the RFL who, anecdotal indications suggest, have been more than a bit surprised and concerned by some of what has been unearthed along the way?

Ah, but what if tax laws have not changed (and they have not, unless something turns up in the Red Book which I suspect is quite possible)? What if the tax laws were what they always were, but some people chose to break them? And in doing so, cheat the exchequer and cheat the cap compared with those who chose to follow them?

"GOVERNMENT SAVINGS
• Tax loopholes and schemes identified which could provide £1bn of extra revenue over the next three years if closed "

Taken from budget snapshot;
rlhttps://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8011882.stmrl

Is that £1Bn just from wire and saints??

If Mr Darling has his eyes on rugby league tax backpay to help fill the black hole you can bet HMRC wont be letting anyone off.

Then that's an entirely different matter then isn't it my accounting chum

If the "loophole" referenced doesn't actually exist then we're doomed (Dad's Army stylee).

But at least I got to go to Wembley a few times and we picked up a few hubcaps

Jeez...268 pages of it (when I can get it to download). Don't hold your breath...

I don't think there is much to speculate about is there....