Bill W (2) wrote:
Sarries SA connection, however, gives them lots of scope. And there is evidence, from SA, that they are exercising it.
is this evidence that is common knowledge/ can be made public?
My understanding is that it is (reasonably) common knowledge. Anyone publishing it, however, would run the risk of a libel action which might well suceed.
In the HMRC v Redknap case the fact of the payments were not in dispute, but the court ruled that they did not constitute taxable income even though (as he admitted) Redknap told a NoW reporter they were a bonus (and by implication taxable).
So here the publisher would have to prove that the payments were part of the players employment contract - which they will be unlikely to be.
The Redknapp and Mandaric case was not libel - it was a criminal prosecution and therefore differs vastly. Furthermore, Redknapp claimed that he lied to the NoW reporter, and an admission of guilt to a reporter is insufficient to prove criminal guilt.
However, if the NoW reporter had printed an article accusing Redknapp of avoiding tax based on his admission, Redknapp would not have a case for libel.
On a separate issue, if the extra payments made by Sarries are common knowledge, surely there is some proof? If there is, then to report their existence would not be libelous.
What exactly does the word 'salary' in the salary cap actually mean? Is it simply basic wage? Does it include bonuses? And other benefits? I am yet to see a conclusive definition.
The parallels between the Redknap case and Sarracens are that Rednlnap (criminal case v HMRC) HMRC failed to prove that the payement (admitted) were made in relation to his employment at Portsmouth. Similarly any libel case between a journalist (civil case - lower standard of proof) would have to prove that payments were made as part of their employment with Sarries.
"Salary" (aka "wage") includes all remuneration associated with employment including benefits in kind.
Of course, but you seem very sure about these extra Sarries payments, so there must be some proof? No? My personal opinion is that most clubs probably exceed the cap, but it's difficult to accuse any one club without knowing a hell of a lot more details. It would be interesting to see a list of what clubs claim they pay each of their players.
So... straying away from the point a little, a club which is using the full salary cap on basic salaries would not be able to pay any bonuses if they win something at the end of the season? How are bonuses incorporated into the clubs' total salary when you do not know how much they will be until the end of the season?
Players are fed at the club, this is a benefit (among countless others)... is this also given a pecuniary value and used towards salary cap? I find this hard to believe.
Tiglon wrote:Of course, but you seem very sure about these extra Sarries payments, so there must be some proof?
There is evidence of payments/benefits - it falls short of evidnence in relation to their emplyment.
My personal opinion is that most clubs probably exceed the cap, I disagree. Most clubs are within the salary cap So... straying away from the point a little, a club which is using the full salary cap on basic salaries would not be able to pay any bonuses if they win something at the end of the season? bonuses could be paid as part of next years remuneration
Players are fed at the club, this is a benefit (among countless others)... is this also given a pecuniary value and used towards salary cap? I find this hard to believe. If HMRC allow it as not a benefit in kind then it would not count towards the salary cap - if HMRC tax it as a benefit in kind it would
I found an article yesterday, from 2002, in the Telegraph reporting the suspected breaches of the salary cap by various clubs at the time. Apparently it cost £75,000 per year trying to police the salary cap. Seems like a waste of money when they appear to be failing (and made no headway in ten years).
I think it's a bit harsh to throw all the mud at Sarries though - I doubt they are the only ones. Tigers website lists 47 players as being in the first team squad; that would be an average wage (including benefits etc) of just £90k. With about half being internationals.
Saracens list 49 in their first team squad, but only around 20 are internationals. So, if they are breaching the cap, Tigers must be performing miracles to stay within it.
GS wrote:I have one question for someone in the know to answer, does the salary cap cover friendlies?
It's a fair question actually, and works both ways. You could argue (very reasonably) that PRL have absolutely no authority to dictate how much clubs spend buying in players for competitions other than the premiership. A bit like the French ignoring the bans from ERC in the TOP14 as the company runing the ERC has no legal authority over what they do outside the Heineken Cup. If that is correct what is to stop a club paying a player x amount for playing in the premiership and having a seperate contract of y amount for friendlies, european cup games, etc.
Now that you ask the question I find it hard to imagine that PRL could stop this legally, and if they did stop it I think it would be morally wrong as they shouldn't be able to prevent us (remember it works for us as well) recruiting more talent so that we can compete in a tournament that they do not control and in which we are currently hindered by their rules. Provided teams aren't taking the biscuit and paying say £5 for premiership games and £500,000 for the HC games (and PRL could regulate against that) I think it would be a reasonable thing to do.
HMRC will be unlikely to publish payments made by a club to an individual.
Their interest is merely to ensure that the due tax is paid - they have no role in policing the salary cap.
Whilst, as a limited company, certain elements of the Tigers accounts are required to be made public, I doubt that would include the specific salaries paid to individual players. Yes they would have to disclose that to the inland revenue but as commercially sensitive information a club would rightly not place that in the public domain.
Many of our players with overseas connections may well exercise legal methods to reduce their tax liability. Again the PRL has no right to see this information. Indeed it would be silly from an individual tax point of view and from a salary cap point of view to call these salary as they would be liable for tax in the UK.
Bill W (2) wrote:Similarly any libel case between a journalist (civil case - lower standard of proof) would have to prove that payments were made as part of their employment with Sarries.
Not a lawyer so this is my uneducated understanding... but in a libel case doesn't the claimant have to prove that it is libel?? I.e. the onus would be on Sarries to prove that they do not breach the cap, rather than on the journalist to prove that payments had been made.
Bill W (2) wrote:Similarly any libel case between a journalist (civil case - lower standard of proof) would have to prove that payments were made as part of their employment with Sarries.
Not a lawyer so this is my uneducated understanding... but in a libel case doesn't the claimant have to prove that it is libel?? I.e. the onus would be on Sarries to prove that they do not breach the cap, rather than on the journalist to prove that payments had been made.
Simon Singh anyone? The UK Courts are notorious, so much so that the USA has moved to negate the authority of such courts in lible tourism cases.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
Bill W (2) wrote:Similarly any libel case between a journalist (civil case - lower standard of proof) would have to prove that payments were made as part of their employment with Sarries.
Not a lawyer so this is my uneducated understanding... but in a libel case doesn't the claimant have to prove that it is libel?? I.e. the onus would be on Sarries to prove that they do not breach the cap, rather than on the journalist to prove that payments had been made.
That is the case in almost every other area of law, but not with libel. The defendant must prove that whatever he said/wrote is actually true.
Is the issue that Sarries are breaking the rules, the rules are not tight enough or that there is no way to legally prevent extra benefits (jobs for wives, rent free homes, cars from sponsors etc)
In the real world - does anyone put that meal / pint / coffee the boss bought you on his expenses on their tax return? Is that so different (other than scale)?
The salary cap is a very different bit of rule making from that imposed by the Hitler youth that run the HMRC, and I guess wasn't co-signed by the Queen or the PM or anyone much, and doesn't carry much weight outside of the G&T lounge of the old RFU furts.
There is a far better thing in operation which is an excellent piece of UK legislation which states that as the director of a company you MUST NOT willfully let a company go bust by spending cash you haven't got.
It works for most organisations, but apparently it doesn't apply to Portsmouth FC, Rangers FC, Leicester City FC, Leeds United FC and an awful lot of major banks.
I would like to think that our rugby clubs are under better stewardship than that, and don't need an arbitery salary cap to make them excercise fiscal prudence.
But who knows in these days when the lunatics have taken over the asylum?
Kicks and scrums and ruck and roll.....Is all my brain and body need!
PAW wrote:Is the issue that Sarries are breaking the rules, the rules are not tight enough or that there is no way to legally prevent extra benefits (jobs for wives, rent free homes, cars from sponsors etc)
In the real world - does anyone put that meal / pint / coffee the boss bought you on his expenses on their tax return? Is that so different (other than scale)?
If Sarries are breaking the rules, so are numerous other clubs. Let's not turn them into pantomime villains.
My original point was around that fact that Cockerill seemed to be in cahoots with Craig wots his face when the question was asked. So was Cockerill trying to open the debate and point a finger?
Cockerill in the interview clearly said he couldn't get Tigers players to play for the amount Sarries get their players to play for, and thus that players at Sarries must agree to play for less than Tigers players(!).
Surely it doesn't take much reading between the lines?
