This struck me to. Although, I think if there are going to be repercussions it's going to be league wide as I don't think MK is probably doing anything different than most Clubs.

Will be interesting to find out what happens, although I have a sneaky suspicion that not a lot will come of it for these very reasons.

Pheww.

I was worried our resident legal eagles would stay silent on this.

The one fact that is actually fact is that it's factually a fact that people don't know all the facts.

It sounds that the salary cap rules needs ripping up and starting again if things are so wide spread bypassed.

No. Mediation is always going to be the RFLs preferred strategy, where possible. As I said, it's a case lawyers would love to take on, because it can be dragged out for years. Even when defending technically correct clauses and conditions, nobody would emerge the victor from that court case.

There have been many challenges to the cap over the years, that have gone reported and unreported. Wigan were given a 3 year grace period when the cap was brought in to avoid the courts. There's always a compromise to be found, whether that's marquee rules, the introduction of financial sustainability rules or a host of other tack ons and flexibility agreements.

I think there will be plenty of owners squirming more than Derek about this.

If anything, Beaumont was honest and open about the salary cap at the end of the season

Yes, but the compromises are usually agreed in advance (and agreed by the other SL clubs).
A player having a hidden contract with a MK-owned company paying 40k a year is a breach of the salary cap. If it isn't, we might as well scrap the salary cap.
Still, we will have to wait and see.

I assume you mean open and honest about Leigh breaking the salary cap rules?!

I may of missed the point here, what cap rule hasn't been agreed by the majority of the clubs?

And, IF the second contract is properly reported to the RFL, and IF the figures reported are in line with the cap calculations, then there is no breach. The key word in all of this is hidden.

Working as a consultant I know the benefits of having holding companies etc to work around, and the deal structure may of been just to benefit the player. From an individual tax perspective, it's almost definitely better to have 2 contracts for 80k and 50k then it is 1 as an employee for 130k. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if lots of teams have multi contract structures to minimise tax (and as a result, maximise player pay per cap space) - its easy for the clubs to report, and it's easy for the RFL to investigate. It's when someone hides that (and then subsequently doesn't pay so it all get exposed in court ... Allegedly) that it all goes south.

Just out of curiosity, Magic Superbeetle, how does it benefit the player to have 2 contracts rather than 1?

There is no personal tax benefit of doing this. Literally none.

I do confess to making the assumption that this isnt 2 contracts of employment for TP, rather a contract of employment and an invoice for the engagement of "TP consultancies inc." - which is where the benefits would lie.

Can the RFL/SL authorities stop a player from having a 2nd income? Might be an obvious way of circumventing the salary cap but surely if a player earns money for something away from the game (regardless of his employer) then that is his business?

Depends who the 2nd employers were. Any common directors/ owners/ managers between the 2 companies would see the second income needing to be declared on the cap.

There's nothing to stop, in theory, a player being employed as a player with 1 club, and then working as a coach/ consultant with another club.

Quote: Michigan red "Can the RFL/SL authorities stop a player from having a 2nd income? Might be an obvious way of circumventing the salary cap but surely if a player earns money for something away from the game (regardless of his employer) then that is his business?'" A few years ago several clubs were paying players a second income in the form of image rights. From memory it was swept under the carpet. This reduced the amount of tax a player paid before the clampdown. (See below) This gave some clubs an advantage of paying a player less because the player was paying less tax. www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/1 ... layers-pay

Quote: Michigan red "Can the RFL/SL authorities stop a player from having a 2nd income? Might be an obvious way of circumventing the salary cap but surely if a player earns money for something away from the game (regardless of his employer) then that is his business?'" A few years ago several clubs were paying players a second income in the form of image rights. From memory it was swept under the carpet. This reduced the amount of tax a player paid before the clampdown. (See below) This gave some clubs an advantage of paying a player less because the player was paying less tax. www.accountancyage.com/aa/news/1 ... layers-pay