That 1st paragraph is pretty unequivacal Adey and the squads of certain teams would add weight to your point. Does anyone know what happened in the discussions between the RFL and Inland Revenue? Are image rights payments allowable in the way you describe? Didn't Leeds lead a test case supported by the RFL in this matter?

I wonder if between us and others we could draft a letter to the RFL asking for clarification and updates as the press releases from the Guardian et al have been sketchy and partial. I think it's a big issue and I know you think so too. Could we get it published in RLW? Bring it out into the open.

Comes down to the distinction between image rights paid by clubs as part of the package, and image rights paid by unconnected third parties (like happened with Scully and Gillette).

Image rights paid by clubs - I've heard no update on the test case, but my understanding is that even if the clubs win then the maximum element of a player's package that can consist of image rights is 15%. I heard it said that the RFL had stopped registering any new contracts with image rights elements since the start of this year, although not seen this confirmed anywhere. Tbh, I would have expected something like this though, since there can surely be no way of determining a player's salary cap value if it is unclear whether part of the package will have to be "grossed up".

I would very much like to know the current status on club-pad image rights. Whether the RFL would be forthcoming, especially with a court case (if we understand it right) that is a kind of sub-judice (?), is another matter. Maybe a letter would indeed be a good idea.

What I have been alluding to is third-party paid image rights. Here - and I am drawing heavily on my interpretation of the Operational Rules as well as other things I have picked up - payments made to players by "unconnected" third parties are not caught under the cap. The one I keep quoting is Scully and Gillette (although I have no idea of the details). But I saw one example of what I suspect was such a (albeit much smaller) deal a lot closer to home, the day before Sam Burgess signed his extended contract with Bradford.

The issue here is that if you have players who are receiving image rights payments (or similar income) from a third party, it is surely näive to assume that the playing contract does not reflect that? But provided that no connection can be demonstrated with the club (that is seemingly where we came to grief over Harris) then such payments cannot count under the cap. Even if - let us say hypothetically - the result was the player being paid much less by the club. And paying image rights offshore saves a shedload of tax and NIC (although so does playing in the South of France!) so you can get a lot more bang for your bucks.

You have to assume that clubs with players who have external image rights etc income are indeed not in any way connected with the third party - although I can't see any rule preventing the club from trying to find such an external sponsor for a player. And success breeds success, in that genuine unconnected sponsors are far more likely to pay for a marquee player with a successful club than for other players, I suggest?

The concern would have to be that a club finds a player someone to pay image rights that might, perhaps, be a pal of the chairman who sees him right in other ways? You would hope and assume that all clubs and their owners would not stoop to such tactics, but that there is scope for this sort of thing must always cast a cloud over the effectiveness of the salary cap IMO. Especially if a wealthy owner was trying to buy success through assembling a quality squad in advance of success on the field. I stress that I have no evidence whatsoever of such things happening. I just wish I could be 100% certain it never has.

Of course, a wealthy owner could just pay money personally to a player offshore, and you'd likely never know as long as no-one leaked. Again, you would hope and expect that no club owner would do that. I would very much doubt any do nowdays.

I suspect any reply from the RFL re this second category of Image Rights would be along the lines of "any such arrangement would be a matter between the player and an unconnected third party, and would therefore not concern us. It would not be for us to judge whether the package a club was paying a player was at a market rate, since that would be a matter negotiated between club and player".

Does that rather rambling response make sense?

Yes it does make sense and I think your last paragraph as to any response we would likely recieve is probably correct except to say that we have been given to understand that the RFL itself has been negotiating with the Inland Revenue at least with regards to acceptable percentages of salary which could possibly be paid by as image rights. This, following your thesis, would not apply to third party groups, who would have to approach the player seperately. In this case I'm guessing that even an introduction would suggest some kind of agency on behalf of the club.

I believe the RFL HAVE been negotiating direct with HMRC, yes. And yes, I would really like to see some official clarity regarding the current status of the HMRC actions and the RFL response. It would be interesting indeed to learn whether HMRC have sought to enjoin any third party image rights within their maximum, on the basis of substance over legal form or whatever?

Your last point though anyway gets right to the crux of it IMO. If the club (or its owner) is in any way involved in securing the external deal, then surely the deal should be caught under the cap? Assuming of course you could prove it? Or, more controversially, maybe it should be assumed that ANY income a player derives by virtue of being a professional RL player should come within the scope of the salary cap rules in some way?

I THINK - but we need someone more familiar with the NRL mechanics to advise - that in Oz there is more transparency, and that there is a limit on "external" income a player can earn by virtue of his image rights etc? I think that effectively adds specified amounts to their salary cap? Is that not part of what went wrong at Melbourne? That they had deals over and above? May be wrong here so would appreciate anyone improving on this.

I can think of another hypothetical situation;

You have a long term main sponsor of the club but you let him sponsor the club for practically nothing and if anyone asks questions as to why they are paying such a low amount it is because they are a long term client and you advertised the sponsorship deal (albeit on an obscure website) and there were no other serious interested parties, so you wanted to keep them at the club.

Now this Sponsor, say he owns quite a few car garages on, lets call it, Snickers Lane, now I may well be wrong and please correct me if I am but the hypothetical club could well over pay him for advertising their up and coming home games on a piece of land that he owns there as marketing doesn't count towards the cap (?)

Now with this extra capital the sponsor would have from the two above scenarios, if he happened to purchase the image rights of the hypothetical clubs big signings that would be completely unconnected and so would not be of any interest to the RFL and their salary cap I would assume.

FWIW the above is totally hypothetical and I have no knowledge of how players income works, it is just a situation made on my assumptions (also the hypothetical club could well not be in a financial situation to do the above)

A club sponsor, in any form, is "connected". Even if the amount of sponsorship - or for that matter advertising revenue - is minimal. Indeed, it was widely reported at the time - and it came from club sources and I was told it - that the reason we got done over Harris was because Publico, who bought his image rights but did not otherwise pay anything to the club, paid for a small advert in a matchday programme once. Events and info since have made me feel there was rather more to it than that, but that explanation was widely discussed on the forums at the time.

So, extending it to your hypothetical example, if the sponsor paid ANY money to the club, it would be "connected" and so any payments it made to players would be caught by the cap. Indeed, the rules very much anticipate this obvious tactic.

If, as I think you are suggesting, the club paid money to the sponsor who then recycled it back to the players, as far as I can see this would still make the sponsor "connected". That would - I think - apply even if the third party was a supplier only.

There is the added problem that Bulls do no have the sort of funds to do that anyway, even if they were minded to. What the Bulls need is more money, not ways of getting round the cap.

That is why I have always had this nagging worry that, somewhere in the game, a wealthy owner could do precisely what you suggest but on his OWN account. Then, I can't see how it would be picked up. All you can do is rely on these wealthy owners being men of honesty and integrity - which no doubt they all are - and not to get involved in this - to me obvious - way of circumventing the cap.

So if the hypothetical sponsor did business with somebody who was willing to pay the image rights, knowing he would get a nice Christmas present at the end of the year and perhaps more business his way that would then be unconnected enough to not count?

Like you say for Bradford this means FA until we have the ability to spend up to and beyond the cap but it is interesting as to how the top clubs with wealthy backers manage to recruit their players and still come under the cap.

This entire problem could be solved by using the points system as a cap rather than actual salary, discussed in length somewhere else on these boards but I forget where.

I go along with Adey on this - all clubs and sponsors are totally honest and beyond reproach. You only have to have quick glance at the squad listings and make a few comparisons to see everyone is paying [iexactly[/i the same and there is clearly nothing illicit going on.

I was told last night by a very reliable source that Sammut is a done deal. The guy i know didn't speak very highly of him as a person though, to say the least!

I wouldn't argue against Sammut, he's the sort of 'off the cuff' player who makes things happen. I would wonder a bit about the long term strategy with the halves at the club though; MP has already brought in Herbert, Briggs, Jeffries and Gale and if Sammut were to come, though obviously, I don't know any of the background or who exactly is going to be here next year, it does appear on the surface to be a tad chaotic.

Sammut is younger than I realised as well. I'd always assumed he was nearing the 30 mark, it's that daft haircut and facial hair I think!!

Kept a keen eye on Joel Moon this morning versus the Bunnies. Looks to have some good footwork and scored 2 tries in that game. Hope there is some truth in that particular rumour.

Jarrod Sammut would give us that extra spark, at the minute we have nobody who is unpredictable. He scores tries, has pace, agility and he can defend.

If we get Sammut then presumably its bye bye to Herbert and maybe Briggs as well. Even if we're sniffing around Sammut it suggests that Potter is looking for another half, and sees that as an area to make changes.

Is Sammut a quota player, or does he get excluded because he plays for Malta?