Armitage

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Post Reply
h's dad
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:19 pm
Location: In front of pc

Re: Armitage

Post by h's dad »

ourla wrote:They've just put the salary cap up.
From £5.1m this season to £5.5m for next season including academy credits if you can claim them, plus going from one marquee player to two. I would have liked to have seen something more ambitious funded by the new tv deal.
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
mol2
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:48 pm
Location: Cosby

Re: Armitage

Post by mol2 »

I am not a wind up merchant, at least not in this area.

However I am not of the opinion that the league has real powers to police a salary cap.
They are not the Police, they are not the Inland Revenue or the VAT man.

The salary cap rules are essentially irrelevant to and confer no obligation on anyone but the clubs and their players. They have no legal or civil powers over anyone else.

To get to look at detailed accounts and bank details of any one of a host of potential "sponsors" making payments to players, let alone to companies or investment vehicles they might use the league would effectively have to pursue the case in the civil courts (presumably for breach of contract)and persuade the court to force those companies to disclose accounts. Just think how many large businesses are involved with sponsoring league clubs and how many subsidiary companies they may have? Not all of which may be under the jurisdiction of UK law and therefore not be answerable to UK courts.

Whatever is written on paper, the salary cap is no more than a gentlemen's agreement with contractual penalties for those that might openly breach it.

For many clubs the cap is irrelevant as they don't have the funds to get near it. Those that can afford to exceed it are likely to be able to find perfectly legal ways around it should they so choose.
Let's face it we all know how little tax some of the the very rich pay by using all the legal avenues available and I have little doubt that some of the rich benefactors of rugby, could (if they so wished) engage the right legal and accounting advice to run rings around the League.
JackFlashJonny
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1909
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:45 am

Re: Armitage

Post by JackFlashJonny »

Tiger_in_Birmingham wrote:
JackFlashJonny wrote:Rich owners have always been part of Rugby but I think it is time we sort this out before Bruce Craig and his cronies make us into a similar version of football which I feel Saracens and now Bath are akin to i.e. lets buy the league like Chelsea and Manchester City have done in recent footballing years...
Possibly a bit harsh on Saracens - they appear to have invested a lot in young players/academy/scouting but it is taking a few years to come through, but they're moving in the right direction.

I think the next few years there will continue to be the odd 'big name' signing but more home grown players.
Yes your right is probably a little harsh on Saracens and their squad this year especially compared with years gone by.

And the 5.5 million just isn't enough for us to compete with the Toulon's of the game I dread to think who the superstars they intend to sign after the world cup are...As a fan all I want is visibility in ensuring that no-one is breaching the cap and for those who can afford to compete with Toulon to do so otherwise how can we ever compete in Europe with one hand tied behind our back..
h's dad
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2579
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 4:19 pm
Location: In front of pc

Re: Armitage

Post by h's dad »

mol2 wrote:I am not a wind up merchant, at least not in this area.

However I am not of the opinion that the league has real powers to police a salary cap.
They are not the Police, they are not the Inland Revenue or the VAT man.

The salary cap rules are essentially irrelevant to and confer no obligation on anyone but the clubs and their players. They have no legal or civil powers over anyone else.

To get to look at detailed accounts and bank details of any one of a host of potential "sponsors" making payments to players, let alone to companies or investment vehicles they might use the league would effectively have to pursue the case in the civil courts (presumably for breach of contract)and persuade the court to force those companies to disclose accounts. Just think how many large businesses are involved with sponsoring league clubs and how many subsidiary companies they may have? Not all of which may be under the jurisdiction of UK law and therefore not be answerable to UK courts.

Whatever is written on paper, the salary cap is no more than a gentlemen's agreement with contractual penalties for those that might openly breach it.

For many clubs the cap is irrelevant as they don't have the funds to get near it. Those that can afford to exceed it are likely to be able to find perfectly legal ways around it should they so choose.
Let's face it we all know how little tax some of the the very rich pay by using all the legal avenues available and I have little doubt that some of the rich benefactors of rugby, could (if they so wished) engage the right legal and accounting advice to run rings around the League.
Good grief, where to begin?

A contractual gentleman’s agreement? That’s novel. I didn’t think the bar was that low.

A small fiddle is simply not worth the risk of getting caught (if anything better to declare it in advance as a mistake or unexpected contractual requirements due to performance). A big fiddle stands out and begs you to go looking for it and they can be found. Furthermore they don’t even need to be found. You seem to be assuming that it is up to the PRL to prove (at whatever level) that there is a breach. This is erroneous as parts of the regulations “place the burden of proof upon a Club to rebut a presumption or establish facts or circumstances.”

The onus is also on the club to ensure unfettered access to and third or connected party that the investigators wish to meet. Failure to do so is a breach.

Suggesting that everybody is keeping quiet about it is farcical. Rugby players do not work for MI5. I know of a few packages and offers and I know hardly anybody. I’m sure others are aware of much more.

You don’t need to be very rich to only pay a very small percentage of your income as tax to the satisfaction of HMRC. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that the resources used by PRL are equivalent to the typical tax inspector.

As a last resort it is perfectly legitimate for the SCM to say a club has declared player X to be on £50k per year. His market value is deemed by SCM to be £80k. Seeing no real justification for this discrepancy, the club is found in breach of the salary cap regulations and is required to accept the SCM’s adjudication or appear before the Disciplinary Panel.
I am neither clever enough to understand nor stupid enough to play this game
JackFlashJonny
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1909
Joined: Sun Jan 12, 2014 11:45 am

Re: Armitage

Post by JackFlashJonny »

Well done H's Dad that was put in a non offensive manner...sort of :smt023
jgriffin
Super User
Super User
Posts: 8074
Joined: Sun Jan 08, 2012 5:49 pm
Location: On the edge of oblivion

Re: Armitage

Post by jgriffin »

Given what I know about tax regulations in this country and the myriad ways to circumvent them for the well-off, I hold no great confidence in any cap policing. H's Dad can give us chapter and verse but I suspect where one goes others will follow, and one will go if they haven't already.
We are at a crossroads where the funding of the game needs more than ever to be controlled as anything approaching a free market will have disastrous consequences for the infrastructure of British rugby IMO. So while I hope the regulation will hold I have serious doubts it actually will. Hayek and the AP will not mix. :smt009
PS Laporte - quite nominally appropriate :smt001 - has opened the door by telling Lancaster he can have Armitage for the world cup and the 6 months leading up to it. So it comes to hey-lads-hey; what does SL do next?
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
fentiger
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3193
Joined: Sun May 03, 2009 6:32 pm
Location: Down Under

Re: Armitage

Post by fentiger »

I think on this occasion Healey has got it right:
http://bit.ly/1ntAAJZ
mol2
Super User
Super User
Posts: 4581
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 5:48 pm
Location: Cosby

Re: Armitage

Post by mol2 »

I don't see where, barring injury that Armitage would fit in to an England side.

Lancaster has decided on Robshaw as skipper - which is the position in the back row he would be competing for.
Yes he could play 8 but we have 2 monsters in Vunipola & Morgan who I wouldn't think him good enough to oust.
Post Reply