That's how I understand it too.

Re players wives - that is counted on the cap but clubs may still employ players wives either as an added benefit for players who have to move (their wife is guaranteed a job) or it can be better tax-wise for the player to have say £20k taxed at wife's tax rate rather than his own.

Insurance fraud is a specific offence. Lying isn't. Lying to gain an advantage through the SC would be no different to lying to gain an advantage through naming your 19 knowing there would be a change.

The SC holds no basis in the law. it is a rugby league rule, one which itself could very well be judged illegal (and as such, would not even be enforceable as a competition rule).

At worst there may be a claim for a breach of contract, but again, I don't think anyone is taking a case suing a party for not keeping to their contractual obligation to collude on bringing wages down.

As long as all payments are made paying the correct tax and NI, the government and police have literally no interest in investigating someone wages.

The simplest way would be to pay the wife or partner through another business. So for instance Caddick construction could pay Mrs Sinfield as much as they wanted. There is no legal obligation for Mrs Sinfield to disclose her earnings to the RFL and there is a legal obligation for Caddick Construction not to disclose that information and Mrs Sinfield would have a clean and cut case to sue Caddick Construction if they did disclose it to them without her permission.

Looking good loiner81, looking good!

The fact that the NRL's 22nd best half back, Chris Sandow is being talked about as a marquee player shows exactly why the marquee ruling is flawed.

P.S warrington fans, before you jump down my throat, I am willing to go as high as 19th best halfback, just to appease you

Regards

King James

Dear Mrs Sinfield,

Following your activity with company X, we are requesting access to your tax details from the HMRC, as set out by the HMRC third party rules. Oh, but if you refuse Mr. Kevin Sinfield will have his playing licence revoked and will be unable to continue his role with the leeds rhinos as it a breach of the rules set out in the operational guide.

Have a nice day

Sincerely
The rfl.

Dear the RFL.

I have no relationship with you, I do not recognise your authority. My husband has no legal authority to release my tax details and should he do so, he will be in breach of the data protection act and my right to privacy.

As a matter of courtesy I will advise, any operational rule you have which would force my husband to break the law (as described above) is legally unenforceable. I also make you aware you do not have my consent to hold my personal tax information, something which under the European Data Protection directive (Consent defined as “…any freely given specific and informed indication of his wishes by which the data subject signifies his agreement to personal data relating to him being processed”) you are obliged to have. If Mr Sinfield were to provide this information to you, not only would he be in breach of the data protection act and my rights to privacy, so would you.

Have a nice day

Thanks

Mrs Sinfield.

Dear Mrs Sinfield,

Thank you for raising your concerns on the matter we contacted you on the matter, and let me give you some reassurances. We neither expect nor want you to think of us as a legal body, we are in no legal position to force you to grant us access to your tax details. However, when Mr. Kevin Sinfield agreed the terms of his players licence, he agreed that should the rfl have concerns over his salary and or any other facet of his playing career, the terms of said licence would be revoked until such a time a full and frank investigation can be completed. Obviously your denial of this information significantly lengthens the process and would result in Mr Kevin Sinfield being banned from entering the rugby pitch due to insurance and health and safety reasons. A similar situation would involve the rfl holding suspicions of drugs banned by the operational rules being taken, and the player being unable and/ or refusing a drugs test.

We are under no legal obligation to allow any player to play in the competitions governed by us, and thus have certain expectations of our players. It is not up to us to convince you to release you tax details, rather your husbands, whose career will presumably depend on it. The NRL have taken to denying playing licences to people for not being very nice (see Todd carney)

Have a nice day, we'd like your husband to keep playing, so we hope you reconsider. But if you don't, it's no skin off our nose, and hope he enjoys success after rugby.

Kind regards
The rfl

I'm afraid that isn't the case. The RFL are obliged to allow Sinfield to sell his trade, they cannot restrict that without a defensible reason. Not agreeing to break the law would not be a reasonable reason. That would be an indefensible restraint of trade.

Besides Sinfield can sign such a term. He can agree to it. But it would not be enforceable. It would simply be declared null and void and The RFL would then also be guilty of breach of contract for breaking whatever agreement you are assuming they have with him.

The rfl can deny a licence to whoever they want. A university can deny a student a 2.1 if they do not satisfactorily meet the requirements as such. A "regular" job can deny someone a job (and in the case of grad schemes can retrospectively) based on their qualifications. Part of the agreement of the licence is the rfl can revoke it at any point should they suspect he is in breach of the operational rules, for a time period set out. Whether that's on field misdemeanours, drugs guidelines, or salary cap.

Sinfield is still allowed to sign for clubs, they are not restricting his trade. So long as an investigation is on going they are well within there rights. You are right to say that they cannot ban him indefinitely, BUT refusal to cooperate by any party will probably lead to a formal banning for 2 years anyway.

I don't know why you (and others) try so hard to enforce this misbelief of the high paid wag. There are plenty of way around the cap, some of them legal, but this is not one of them.

Being an RL player is a regular job. There isn't a different law for it. And allowing Sinfield to sign but not play would still fundementally restrict his ability to sell his trade. As soon as they notified him of the restriction an injunction would be sought and a court would insist he be allowed to play.

The rfl can have all the rules they want, but it it just a governing body. Those rules cannot infringe on a players legal rights, they cannot break the law themselves and there isn't a work around for them. However you word it, you would still be banning a player for not breaking the law. Something which is not only not a defensible reason, but would also leave the rfl open to action themselves.

Fwiw I don't believe it happens either. I think if a club wanted to break the cap they would just do it go to court if the punishment was anything important and expose it for the paper tiger every other sport admits these type of rules are.

Every job is a regular job except for the armed forces and the police. It still doesn't mean you can always do that job without complying with certain industry regulations.

For instance you can't be a pro RL coach without a Level 3 licence. That isn't restricting someone's trade if they're only a level 2. It's requiring a certain regulation be adhered to.

The salary cap most certainly is enforceable, even in law. To demonstrate a restraint of trade you have to demonstrate that an individual has been restricted by this measure. It hasn't and won't be until an RL player is deemed to be worth more than the salary cap. Until that point it's not the RFL denying anyone a higher wage, it's the club.
If Wigan want to pay Sam Tomkins £1.9m per year then Sam Tomkins (not Wigan) will have a case. Until then it is only Wigan who is restraining Tomkins wage.

Actually, you don't. By definition a contract is a restraint of trade. that is what it is intended to do. What you have to show is that restraint is reasonable. Nobody would argue that the salary cap isn't a restraint of trade, it is. The argument would be made that it is reasonable to protect the integrity of the game, in terms of the competitive balance and to protect clubs financially, and as such also works in the players favour by providing them with a stability that wouldn't otherwise be there. I think considering recent history they would struggle to convince anyone that the Salary Cap is providing stability for players, or that it is protecting clubs financially, or that that it is integral for a competitive balance. (im confident there will be a few Wakefield, Bradford and Crusaders players with pretty compelling evidence that the SC did not provide them with any kind of security and in no way worked in their favour)

It would not need a player to need to be paid more than the SC for a complaint to be made, it has an obvious deflationary effect on wages already, if it didn't, it wouldn't exist. The argument wouldn't be whether or not the SC was a restraint, it not only quite clearly is, it is intended to be one and has no other purpose other than to cap wages, to argue it doesn't do that would be crazy. The argument would be over the reasonableness of such a thing, not just from the clubs point of view, but the players as well.

You've put forward the argument that the salary cap is easily challenged legally for quite a while now. Yet lots of different sports in different countries operate one. If it was so easily challenged why hasn't it been?
Whether it's the NRL in Australia, Union in France, the massive U.S. sports or all 4 professional team sports in the UK, they all seem to manage with a salary cap.


But well done for trying to deflect the debate away from whether people participating in a competition have to abide by certain rules and regulations, like RL players do. If they want to participate in SL they have to abide by those rules.