DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 18139--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: QuincyJones
Date: March 4, 2019, 7:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Quinky link ---
>
> How to tell if they've breached the cap? Wait outside their
offices and watch for carloads of expensive lawyers arriving...
:)
>
> The sticky issue for me is this: why should two individuals
not start a business venture together? The fact that one owns
the club and the other plays there may look a bit dodgy, but at
the same time that shouldn't preclude them from going into
business. It may well come down to how profits are shared out,
whether funding was put in place by one party and the relevant
paperwork legitimises this, whether the correct tax is paid etc.
>
> It doesn't look good. But that doesn't mean it isn't legit. No
doubt the club have been very careful in how they present this
to the governing body.
>
--- End Quote ---
There is nothing stopping them from going into business together
whatsoever. The point is that any and all additional benefits
(even gifts) all have to come under the salary cap. So the real
question is whether or not they have declared these business
ventures to PRL and included them in expenditure, as they should
have.
I'd hazard a guess that they haven't. No doubt that won't stop
them from getting away with it.
#Post#: 18140--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: QuincyJones
Date: March 4, 2019, 7:31 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 ---
Yeah exactly - nothing wrong with them doing it, so long as it's
all declared and included in their cap payments.
#Post#: 18141--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: QuincyJones
Date: March 4, 2019, 7:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Quinky link ---
>
> 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.
>
--- End Quote ---
The article notes that Wray was the owner of the house in which
Schalk Brits lived since 2011 and it is not known whether or not
he paid rent. So if he didn't pay rent, or his rent was
subsidised, the value of this would have to be declared and
included as part of his salary under the cap.
Lots of ways they can manipulate things and it looks on the face
of it, like they have.
#Post#: 18146--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: Blucherquin
Date: March 4, 2019, 7:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It all depends on if PLR knew about the arrangements -- which
Saracens says they did.
So let's see.
#Post#: 18148--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: Fursty
Date: March 4, 2019, 8:14 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think there's a lot of confusion here between generating a tax
liability and breaching the salary cap.
It's perfectly possible that shareholding of the companies was
transferred to the players at below market value which would
generate a tax liability (which would almost certainly be
settled lawfully), it would also count as remuneration under the
salary cap rules - however there is no reconciliation between
amounts declared under the salary cap and individuals tax
returns.
However one point I'd make is that assessing fair value can be
tricky, particularly if the properties held by this company were
bought from another of Mr Wray's companies. Also much more minor
but potentially beneficial to the players is that all of the
admin, legal, conveyancing and accounting etc might be performed
by another group company and re-charged at below market rates.
#Post#: 18149--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: Blucherquin
Date: March 4, 2019, 8:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Fursty link ---
>
> I think there's a lot of confusion here between generating a
tax liability and breaching the salary cap.
>
> It's perfectly possible that shareholding of the companies was
transferred to the players at below market value which would
generate a tax liability (which would almost certainly be
settled lawfully), it would also count as remuneration under the
salary cap rules - however there is no reconciliation between
amounts declared under the salary cap and individuals tax
returns.
>
> However one point I'd make is that assessing fair value can be
tricky, particularly if the properties held by this company were
bought from another of Mr Wray's companies. Also much more minor
but potentially beneficial to the players is that all of the
admin, legal, conveyancing and accounting etc might be performed
by another group company and re-charged at below market rates.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes quite. This isn't a thing about who owns what or is it dodgy
to have a company or have they told HMRC something -- it is ONLY
about have Saracens been giving more money to their players than
they have been telling the Premiership.
To which the answer may well be no.
#Post#: 18152--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: Quinky
Date: March 4, 2019, 8:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Blucherquin link ---
>
> Yes quite. This isn't a thing about who owns what or is it
dodgy to have a company or have they told HMRC something -- it
is ONLY about have Saracens been giving more money to their
players than they have been telling the Premiership.
>
> To which the answer may well be no.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's the gist of my point. It may look dodgy, but it could be
perfectly legal/permissible.
#Post#: 18159--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: DOK
Date: March 4, 2019, 10:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Saracens are spending £2m over the salary cap - and it's legal
HTML https://www.rugbypass.com/news/saracens-are-spending-pound2m-over-the-salary-cap-and-its-legal
#Post#: 18161--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: Fearless Fred
Date: March 4, 2019, 10:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DOK link ---
>
> Saracens are spending £2m over the salary cap - and it's legal
HTML https://www.rugbypass.com/news/saracens-are-spending-pound2m-over-the-salary-cap-and-its-legal
>
--- End Quote ---
That article doesn't really address the allegations made in the
SportsMail piece, though. Yes, Sarries can go above the £7M
headline figure with credits for EQP and two Marquee players.
What is a question is the nature of the business links that Wray
has with certain players and how/whether they could/should be
considered as money being paid to players.
#Post#: 18165--------------------------------------------------
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
DIR By: DazzaS
Date: March 4, 2019, 11:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It does not matter if the club are cheating again. Despite all
the promises from our dear leaders that Saracens will be found
out and Quins will play their part in ensuring justice is done,
the club were complicit in the cover up so no sanctions were
brought forward. Same will happen this time
Also last time while some clubs were in the red they had
businesses models to gradually get back in the black and
continuously each season most clubs including Quins were making
progress. Then after the cover up the salary cap jumped and
clubs splashed out to retain the players they had and all the
business models had to start again and currently no where near
recovering. Apart from Exeter.
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 13
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page