page not found?

rlCorrect Linkrl

Should be quite interesting to see how this pans out, obviously the clubs are not going to prepared to hand over up to 40% premiums above signed contract salaries.

I'm pretty sure it has absolutely nothing to do with the clubs, just the players. Not that I'm knowledgeable about this sort of stuff, but I think it was a way for the Aussie players to keep more of the money they earned and pay less in taxes.
It all counts on the salary cap anyway.
The negative for clubs is that they will have to pay more for overseas players and there could be some renegotiating going on.

Surely the clubs have the advantage given the players have signed a contract? On that basis I can't see the reason why a club would re-negotiate - the player took a risk on a loophole, it closed - hard luck.

The only implications are the potential raised values of future overseas players. Given the relative changes in exchange rate (UK Pound falling, Aussie Dollar rising), we may be getting to the end of the era of big name imports. Not the worst thing that could happen in my opinion for the long term health of the game - more opportunities for home grown lads to develop.

From 2013 the NRL is going to 18 clubs from 16 as now.
That will mean an extra 50 players required and It wouldn't surprise me if they come raiding SL and Wigan for our best players.
We could end up with almost no quality Aussies coming over and losing some of our best to the NRL.
Then there's Union trying to poach our best young talent.
The RFL and SL need to get ahead of the game on these two problems and resolve matters before they begin to damage RL in the UK.

About ten years too late for that...

Ted that sounds like you are a forward thinking strategist. I was going to suggest you should get a job with the RFL but you would never fit in.

Salary cap?

As far as I can see it's the players problem to sort out, not the clubs

it involves both the players AND the clubs!!!the clubs agree to transfer part of their salary in to an offshore a/c(regarded as a retirement fund)to lower tax paid.the only amount which is on the cap,is the money they are taxable for!hence the apparent reason shaun berrigan wants out and back to oz.before all this came to light,berro had sorted it out HIMSELF to come off the quota,but upon realising he is going to be quite a bit ''down'' on his money,is wanting to run!!

That's not true.
The cap amount is the full salary.
If a player is on £100K and say £40K is paid a working salary and £60K as pension (offshore) payments then the full £100K would be registered as the players cap value but he would only pay full tax (and I presume NHI contributions) on the £40K, he would pay much less tax on the £60K portion.

That's my understanding but it's probably far more complicated.

I think you're correct but what will be looked at is the players effective salary, as 60K is tax free he is effectively getting paid 124K and this would have been the understanding he signed on. The clubs may have a valid point saying they have signed a contract but they will have some seriously unhappy players on their hands. I can see a fair few clubs sacrificing one 'name' to allow them to keep the rest.

Here's the taxmans link.
rlhttps://www.pensionsworld.co.uk/pw/article/clampdown-on-high-earners-efrbs-and-ebts-1237401rl


Any pension fund managers on here?