DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18107--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: marlowish
Date: March 4, 2019, 3:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Blucherquin link ---
>
>
> Good bit of work by the Mail.
>
> Shall we all watch as the large broom sweeps the whole thing
under the carpet?
>
--- End Quote ---
Brooms are already at the ready I have no doubt.
--- Quote from: DOK link ---
>
>
>
> But in terms of sweeping it under the carpet, someone at the
club told me a while ago they knew how Saracens were getting
round the salary cap. So it may not be a big revelation to the
clubs, but perhaps they can no longer ignore it now it's public.
>
--- End Quote ---
I would love to think you are right but it was ignored last time
and I see no reason to think it will not be ignored this time.
--- Quote from: RodneyRegis link ---
>
> Some of those sound like potentially more than salary cap
breaches. Those sound a lot like taxable benefits if conferred
to an employee.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes indeed. It would be good if HMRC get involved, they will
not let it pass the way PRL did.
Glasgow Rangers were demoted 2 divisions for tax evasion on
behalf of their players, the same should happen here if true.
"Something special is happening at Sarries" Yea ok.
#Post#: 18109--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: Fearless Fred
Date: March 4, 2019, 4:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's not uncommon for players to be directors of companies.
Danny Care is a director of Danny Care Ltd.
HTML https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/07074832/officers
for
example. It's financially a good idea for players to manage
different revenue streams that they might have on top of their
club wages, and I'm pretty sure the Mail reporter would be aware
of this.
I think the issue with what the Mail are reporting is that the
companies in their report were originally set up by Wray and/or
his Associates before the players were brought onboard as
Directors. That's a different scenario. If they're simply being
aided in setting up a company like DC has by Wray et al, then
I'm sure they'll be able to explain that simply. If they
obfuscate then I think there needs to be further investigation.
#Post#: 18110--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: RodneyRegis
Date: March 4, 2019, 4:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
why should two individuals not start a business venture
together?
Because one is employer and the other employee. It's like saying
why should one guy not give another guy a house or car if he
wants to? If they are an employee then a benefit is conferred.
Similarly, if I invest in a business which is simply a vehicle
for transferring funds from me to an employee then I'd better
make sure I'm not evading tax...
#Post#: 18111--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: Monte
Date: March 4, 2019, 4:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes but why set up companies under individual names and not do
it all under one company? If the players wait to sell the house
once they have finished playing that comes outside the salary
cap and no one will probably notice. A very nice way of
breaching the cap like paying into someone’s pension you let the
housing market deliver the profits.
#Post#: 18115--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: Quinky
Date: March 4, 2019, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RodneyRegis link ---
>
> why should two individuals not start a business venture
together?
>
> Because one is employer and the other employee. It's like
saying why should one guy not give another guy a house or car if
he wants to? If they are an employee then a benefit is
conferred. Similarly, if I invest in a business which is simply
a vehicle for transferring funds from me to an employee then I'd
better make sure I'm not evading tax...
>
--- End Quote ---
Er, no it's not like that at all. People can go into business
with whomever they like, regardless of their existing
relationship. One person employing another doesn't automatically
preclude them from going into business in an entirely different
venture. It's not like "giving them a car or a house". Let's
assume you are employed by someone, and you have a completely
new business idea that you think may interest them; you approach
them and suggest going into some form of partnership... should
they decline because they employ you? No. But if you can point
me to any legislation that says it's not allowed, I'd be really
interested to see it.
What may be an issue is funding of the business activities, and
I see you mention HMRC. However, provided it's all been properly
recorded and declared (which we don't know), then it's hard to
police it.
As I said earlier, just because it doesn't look good, that
doesn't mean it's not legitimate. Part of me wants it to be
found to contravene the rules - but my gut feeling is that it
will be covered up, forgiven, found to be not worth challenging,
or whatever.
Sarries - the best team money can buy.
#Post#: 18117--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: RodneyRegis
Date: March 4, 2019, 4:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A pension is a legal way of giving an employee money.
A house is not.
#Post#: 18120--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: Blucherquin
Date: March 4, 2019, 4:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
There's nothing wrong with any of these companies existing.
The question is why they exist and what they're used for.
Owen Farrell is perfectly entitled to have a property empire.
The question is whether any of the company's operations and
revenue streams are in lieu of salary payments from Saracens for
playing rugby.
#Post#: 18122--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: exdublinquin
Date: March 4, 2019, 5:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I agree there is unlikely to have been any breaches of law and
one is entitled to go in to business with someone, be they
employer or not.
If the individual is your employer or a connected person to your
employer (typically a Director or Shareholder), then there CAN
be tax issues, but again if these are dealt with correctly,
there is unlikely to be a breach of tax law.
However in this case, it is the Premiership rules on determining
adherence to the Salary cap that are pertinent.
So although there is no breach of company law or tax law, there
may well be a breach of the internal regulations for determining
the salary cap.
#Post#: 18132--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: Quinky
Date: March 4, 2019, 6:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RodneyRegis link ---
>
> A pension is a legal way of giving an employee money.
>
> A house is not.
>
--- End Quote ---
Not sure where you get the idea that someone has been given a
house.
Let me put this is simpler terms:
A company set up to invest in property may require loans and/or
mortgages to buy said properties. These are known as
"liabilities", whilst the properties themselves are "assets". If
the ownership of the company is transferred by way of sale, then
usually both assets and liabilities will be transferred with the
company. As long as fair value is paid for the company, it's
legit. If however fair value isn't paid, or assets are
undervalued, then it's not legit.
Regarding loans, if someone has given a loan to the company
and/or its directors then there will be terms attached, to
govern repayment periods, interest charged etc. It may be that
interest is at a rate preferable to market, but this would then
be seen as a taxable benefit (if it's done via the employer).
What is questionable is if Wray were to fund the loan
personally, in which case I suspect this may raise the eyebrows
of PRL.
Ultimately, unless loans are given without repayment, then
nobody is "giving a house" to anyone else. If you look at the
accounts filed by the Vunipola's company, you'll see they have
liabilities due after more than 12 months - this is how the bulk
mortgage liabilities are shown. Hence, I strongly doubt that
anyone was "given a house".
Now, you could look at Land Registry records and see purchase
price paid for properties, see who the vendor was, see if the
price paid reflected fair market value, see who is guaranteeing
the mortgage (usually hinted at by way of charges registered)
and then work out of any benefits have been bestowed; but that's
a long way from "giving a house" to someone.
#Post#: 18136--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: thomh
Date: March 4, 2019, 7:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: RodneyRegis link ---
>
> A pension is a legal way of giving an employee money.
>
> A house is not.
>
--- End Quote ---
Why not? So long as the correct amount of tax is paid on the
value of the house I see no reason why it couldn't be.
In any event, what they actually seem to have been given is
shares in companies which in turn own properties. Awarding
shares to employees happens all the time, albeit usually it's
shares in the company the employee actually works for.
The really strange thing here is why, if this IS part of a
salary cap avoidance scheme, has it been done in a way that it
so easily ascertainable by anyone who happens to type "Vunipola"
into Companies House while procrastinating? English companies
have to declare any persons with significant control, including
shareholders over a certain % threshold, so using shares in
English companies to circumvent salary cap regulations would be
bizarrely transparent. Here's one of them for example:
HTML https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/10592745
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 13
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page