RugbyRebels

The I has an article on a probe into the payment of players, for things on top of contract (image rights etc..), being carried out by HMRC:

https://inews.co.uk/news/hmrc-probes-en ... TO=newsnow

Could be a few squeaky bums around the league at the moment! I guess Bristol have to be in the mix becuase it has some high profile players, but don't see them in adverts for other stuff, Sarries with their England players will be in spotlight I suspect...

Beat me to it - was just coming to post the same.

As far as squeaky bums are concerned, it'll be about fines rather than anything explicitly rugby related (like cap breaches). It's going to affect all 13 clubs, and should be a pretty evenly spread.
I would hope that rugby has been able to learn from the mistakes and experience of other sports, and had its house in order before being put under the microscope itself.
I hope...

Let's face it, there's no particular incentive to do this from a club's perspective; it's all counted within the cap after all - though I guess it means the player paying less tax... How much would that difference be actually worth to a non-marquee player?

Common sense and rugby administration do'nt often go hand in hand though - hand-to-hand is more likely.


ETA: Looks like the i disagree that it's all covered by the salary cap anyway - but then, journalists...

It's astonishing HMRC have not gone after more clubs already. It's also a bit weird they're doing rugby before football, because I'd be willing to take a punt on which one might be thought to owe more money, but that's no defence of those clubs involved

Digby wrote:It's astonishing HMRC have not gone after more clubs already. It's also a bit weird they're doing rugby before football, because I'd be willing to take a punt on which one might be thought to owe more money, but that's no defence of those clubs involved

Thing is I guess football can also tie them up in legal terms for a lot longer. But if they've just "won" a case against rugby, it's probably easier to translate that across.

Probably looking at the joint ventures that Wray used under the benefits in kind rules too.

And they did football, they were in litigation against Rangers for over a decade over Employee Benefit Trusts. They only did 1 club as a test case, everyone else then settled up/were made bankrupt

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:It's astonishing HMRC have not gone after more clubs already. It's also a bit weird they're doing rugby before football, because I'd be willing to take a punt on which one might be thought to owe more money, but that's no defence of those clubs involved

Thing is I guess football can also tie them up in legal terms for a lot longer. But if they've just "won" a case against rugby, it's probably easier to translate that across.

I did wonder if they were looking to create precedent, but again looking at football they went after Rangers (quite rightly) and then ignored that's a norm for many leading football clubs. So is the problem football is just politically more important? Which would be bit weird but something made them not look.

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:It's astonishing HMRC have not gone after more clubs already. It's also a bit weird they're doing rugby before football, because I'd be willing to take a punt on which one might be thought to owe more money, but that's no defence of those clubs involved

Thing is I guess football can also tie them up in legal terms for a lot longer. But if they've just "won" a case against rugby, it's probably easier to translate that across.

I did wonder if they were looking to create precedent, but again looking at football they went after Rangers (quite rightly) and then ignored that's a norm for many leading football clubs. So is the problem football is just politically more important? Which would be bit weird but something made them not look.

They didn't have to go after them individually, they got everyone else using EBTs to come to the table because Rangers changed the law. Anyone trying to defend their case after that decision was just going to piss away legal costs.

Danno wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:
Thing is I guess football can also tie them up in legal terms for a lot longer. But if they've just "won" a case against rugby, it's probably easier to translate that across.

I did wonder if they were looking to create precedent, but again looking at football they went after Rangers (quite rightly) and then ignored that's a norm for many leading football clubs. So is the problem football is just politically more important? Which would be bit weird but something made them not look.

They didn't have to go after them individually, they got everyone else using EBTs to come to the table because Rangers changed the law. Anyone trying to defend their case after that decision was just going to piss away legal costs.

I know not everyone came to the table, because I know some of the people doing the accounts. Though I suppose I don't know everyone else I don't know about didn't fess up to everything and settle. I don't follow football much but I'd been assuming if some of the clubs had settled what they owe that would have been in the news

Confidentiality clauses are pretty standard for legal settlements. You're right that it's odd that there was little to no publicity outside of Rangers

As is the idea they've cover this off when they simply haven't, not in all instances anyway