Sad to see him go, he had improved, got bigger and more confident. Would have been a great squad player should bulls be ravaged by so many injuries again next season. Who knows what could have been for him but seems like he hasn't been given a chance. What back up players do we actually have left now!????

Why the hell would we do that?
Paying out the remainder of someone's contract just makes absolutely no sense to me. You lose the player yet his salary for that final year still counts on the cap, so why not just keep him?

Wakey bound?

I don't think its like that - for example it was mentioned at the fans forum how the cap reduced on the day that Dave Halley left the club

I am guessing here, but I suspect what has happened is that a final payment has been made for the remaining year of his contract. So, let's say he was on £25K per year, perhaps they offer about half of that, say, £12 for him to leave. Thereby you actually 'gain' the balance back into the salary cap 'pot'

The figures are entirely made up, but I suspect its something like that, because - I agree - it makes no sense to pay someone their full years salary and not have their services anymore.

Yeah that would make more sense I suppose, although it seems a litle strange that Crookes would accept that with no immediate future club (unless he has one).

He's had spells on loan at Sheffield and Widnes, so there are two clubs who know him and presumably rate him...

If its classed as redundancy he'd get 30K tax free so the net impact on him is less than it may seem.

I'd be surprised if we could class it as redundancy

£12 doesn't seem like a big payoff

How do you work that out.

How does he work what out ??

The net impact or the £30k tax free bit ??

the 30k tax free bit I'd imagine. doubt crookes is on that much a year in total, let alone as a redundancy payment (which paying off a players contract wouldnt count as anyway).

Well if it is redundancy what Jockabull means is that the 1st 30k of redundancy is non-taxable, where as anything after that is taxed at what ever rate of tax that person pays.

The 30k figure

The 1st 30k of redundancy is tax free in which the tax man does not need to know about

What he said.





Don't see why it wouldn't. Employer is terminating his contract prematurely, would have thought that fits the bill for redundancy/compromise agreement? I'm not an HR bod, normally only see this from the payroll side, so could be wrong.

I know that. More intrested where the 30k figure comes from.

Thats it, its the upper limit for tax free redundancy payment. I was commenting on what I thought Crookes had been paid if thats what you were thinking. Sorry if it came across as that!

I think he just stated it as if the payoff was in fact redundancy and it went over 30k, not the actual figure he would get lol

I'm not an HR bod either, but I did go through a redundancy with Corus. Essentially, you cannot make a person redundant - it is the role that goes.

Therefore, we would be saying that there is no longer a requirement at the club for a 5th choice centre (or whatever). All people whom that might effect (Platt, Sykes, Whitehead, Lulia, Purtell etc. etc.) would then have to go through the same redundancy procedure before it's decided who is to leave.

I'm not being facetious here - I found the thought of this procedure quite amusing when applied to sportsmen. The interviews would have made great viewing (so Paul, what do you think you bring to the team?).

I'm sure you would be spot on with a compromise agreement, as with Glenn Hall.

If you read the RFL Operational Rules, it makes clear reference to the standard "RFL Compromise Agreement" that I think is meant to be used by default whenever a club terminates a player's contract.

Any contractual payments will be taxable. That means if a player still had say a year left on his contract and the club paid him that year - whether in the form of a PILON (pay in lieu of notice) or as salary up front - then that payment is generally taxable and subject to NIC, as there is a contractual commitment to pay.

What is NOT taxable is compensation for breach of contract (up to £30k). So the usual approach is to terminate the contract without notice (since paid notice would be taxable) and pay a sum (tax-free up to £30k) in compensation. Since the breach of contract by the employer frees the employee from his own obligations under the contract (including the obligation to keep his trap shut and not bad-mouth the club), you get him to sign a Compromise Agreement where, in consideration of him receiving the compensation payment he undertakes to do (or not do) certain things. He has to receive independent legal advice, paid for by the employer, confirming he does not lose anything by signing, before the agreement becomes legally effective.

The advantage of the above route is that it costs the employer a lot less to get the same net payment to the employee. Its an area full of pitfalls though, and HMRC are always very interested in the paperwork and precise details of each such case. Been there, done that numerous times.

I don't think its the same concept for fixed term contracts. I've been through a similar process at my work though. Weird isn't it how you everyone always knows who's getting sacked before the "process"....

Stul is pretty well correct mate. That's why its done through the compromise agreement route, as Hall was.

Do you mean they can't just sack you for being Scottish any more? It's political correctness gone mad.

I can still be legally killed with a crossbow from the castle walls at Berwick (or whats left of them)...