Excuse me?

why, what ave you done??

Sorry, its just I'm a bit of a cynic when it comes to big businessmen and the ways they accumalate their fortunes.

I just happen to think that people don't make millions by straight forward means, and I reckon that a lot goes on behind closed doors that the likes of me and you will never, ever, know about...

Interesting article in The Times.

If we have dispensed with Reardon's services then so be it.

Other clubs have dispensed with players services for off the field incidents that went to court.

I am disappointed by the club's statement wrt Glees though - as has been commented elsewhere.

in what way?

I'm not.....
Jimmy Lowes spent nearly every week answering questions on Gleesons move to Australia, saying he wouldnt stand in gleesons way if he wanted to move...etc

well there you go Wigans not Exactly Australia but its out the door......

Good riddance to Reardon.

Showed glimpses of his true potential but it was few and far between. Constant injury problems didn't help and when added to his off field 'problems' led him to become somewhat of a wage thief imo.

Roll on friday, c'mon the Wire!

I hope we do release him onwards and upwards.

It just didn't seem to acknowledge any of the work he put in and some of the performances he gave.

Even if there were (allegedly) poorer parts regarding attitude etc usually I'd expect the club to be a little more generous in their statement.

Warrington aren't good at this.

I remember when Gaskell left, there were some good things said but absolutely nothing about Appo who made the dream team a season or so before (and others).

It's disapponting.

Stuart Reardon to Salford City Reds it is then!...

On that point though, if any loopholes are closed, wouldn'tit be the players who would be worse off moving forwards?

Surely a player accepts a salary, and rightly or wrongly, the player and club will use whatever loopholes necessary to ensure that player gets as much of that money as possible rather than the taxman.

I would see this causing problems in terms of players wanting to leave etc. but tough.

In terms of back payments, you would expect that the RFL would allow dispensation, considering this is something that they are clearly engaged in, as Gatcliffe confirmed they are discussing this with the RFL.

People will naturally assume that we have cashed in on Gleeson and put 2 and 2 together about the tax issue, but the statement from the club clearly shows a bit of bad feeling towards Gleeson, and not that they have forced his hand.

yeah, cockayne to wire as well!

Ermmmmm, just no.

Good to see sensible debate and posts on all this.

It will be down to what was agreed with the player contractually. If, for example, it was agreed the club would pay £x as image rights to the Personal Service Company set up by/for the player, then that's a fixed commitment to pay x regardless. If HMRC then determine that some or all of such payments should be treated as being NET of PAYE, that is not the player's problem but the club's.

If, though, the contract provided for such a payment to be made "net of any tax or other deductions which may become due now or in the future" (say) then its the player's problem.

Its unlikely IMO that the second option will apply, cos that immediately suggests to HMRC that the club was admitting the possibility that image rights payments (or payments into EBTs or various other payment schemes) might really be emoluments. But it might!

Re back-payments - I've argued elsewhere that under normal accounting rules - and indeed under the Salary Cap Operational Rules - the grossing-up should be factored back into the relevant years. That would likley cause prior year breaches. The rules - on my reading - certainly allow the RFL to do that. But in practice I can't see it happening - both because many clubs may be implicated, and more to the point clubs made full disclosure and we have to assume the SC Auditor did not question then whether grossing-up may be necessary. Again, we are surmising here. And in any case, it would be the mother of all cans of worms - although it might become so anyway if clubs not implicated seek to mount a challenge (although the Operational Rules limit the scope for that). So yes, I am sure you are right about dispensation.

I did not see Gleeson's sale as being a move to raise cash to pay HMRC - after all, you just need to ask Mr Moran nicely for help there if needed? But its clear some are seeing it - and some of the actions taken at Stains - as reducing player spend to ensure compliance with the cap going forward.

All speculation, obviously.

That said, you lot will probably go and sign another top Aussie centre now to give the lie to all that!

I'm not an expert on tax matters, I'm employed and my tax is paid by my employer.

I would see that the clubs are liable for any backpay, as technically, if they have paid players an amount into an offshore account but not paid the required level of tax on this, then that would suggest they are liable.

I'm pretty sure moving forward, it would be th players losing out.

I'm sure it will, because it will reduce the overall amount the British game is able to pay for players. Overseas players will be especially badly hit if HMRC manages to significantly reduce the use of image rights paid to overseas personal service companies or any payments into overseas employee benefit trusts, since it will cost a LOT more to hire these guys.

Obviously, if the salary cap is increased substantially then that would likely resolve it, although at severe cost to clubs' underlying profitability. It would further widen the gulf between clubs with wealthy backers and those without, and IMO would probably see off most of the latter. Then you'd have something like an 8-team competition.

Interesting times...!

kin ell thats the only bit i understood.....

It does actually, ta.

A colleague at work at some experience of this. The procedure has gone gone exactly as you set out above.

However the 'negotiating' point is still going on...a year later. HMRC are arguing with a large organisation, said organisation has fronted up and argued it's position and the case worker is umming and ahhing. Interesting stuff.

Indeed.

a few years back, I argued with what was then the Inland Revenue for 18 months over about £1/2m of corporation tax they claimed our company owed because of inconsistent treatment of unrealised foreign exchange gains vs losses on forex hedging instruments (don't ask, unless you suffer from insomnia...). As it happened, it was a situation I had inherited and I agreed 100% with the Inland Revenue - not that I ever told them that. We conceded in the end - it was anyway only a dispute over which tax year to recognise the items in - but it did go on for ages. I suspect this one probably has been going on - and likely still may go on - for ages too.

What was funny was how aggressive they were until someone disagreed. It was like she didn't know how to deal with the opposition.

Its funny (although not at the time) when they come in convinced that you have done something wrong and they have caught you. Happened to me several times. They come in all aggressive and act like they are trying to bully you into conceding that you have been engaging in fraud - especially the Customs & Excise side. You just stand there wondering what the hell they are on about.

Then, when you finally prove to them that its THEM that are wrong - invariably they have picked up a wrong figure off the computer at Southend or wherever, and now look prats - they go all nice and pally and bring things to a speedy conclusion. Suppose I can understand the approach though.

Anyway...we digress. Anyone know if Reardon HAS gone yet cos I've not seen it reported anywhere definitively that he has?

exactly the point i was making, speculaTIOn for the sake of it!

not facts!

just one blog in the times, no evidence however

Thanks. I rather suspected as much. The rumour machine working overtime in Bullsland, of course...

Sorry about this, but I thought this was about Reardon. Now what's going on with him?