Mumblings on the Bulls board that we sacked (or released) Reardon today in addition to letting Gleeson go.

Bull (excuse pun) because we signed Mathers or true?

If true, TS is certainly not hanging around getting shut of Cullen's "world class" signings is he?

Not Mumblings on the Bulls Board.

Chris Irvine in the Times [url=http://timesonline.typepad.com/rugby_league/2009/04/martin-gleeson-signs-for-wigan.htmlhere.[/url

Lets hope so, more salary cap space, mediocre player gone. He'll get snapped up by somebody else. He'll come back to haunt us by handing off the whole team one after the other, fortunately he'll have only gone 4 yards.

More salary cap space indeed, but highly doubtful it will be filled....that spare cash, along with the Gleeson transfer money will be used to pay off the taxman, before the club finds itself in very sticky legal waters...



Put simply, don't expect any big signings very soon....

todays made up fact.

Don't be silly, the salary cap will be a totally different entity. I hardly think we'll go from paying £1.65m a year, to £1.4m or whatever because of tax implications. I'm sure if there's tax issues, they'll be sorted, it won't be to the detriment of the playing staff.

FWIW, I don't expect any signings for now, I think 2009, Smith will take a good look at the players, and by June/July etc when the anti tampering thingy is lifted, he'll know what/who he wants for 2010. Had these folk not gone, that was another £200k (ish) tied up that Smith couldn't do anything with until 2011 & 2012.

Folk keep talking about 'Now', I think there's a much bigger picture.

In simple terms, the Gleeson transefer fee, and the spare money will pay off any problematic finances we may have with the taxman...I agree entirely that we won't make any major signings this year.....A reassessment of finances is probably going on as we speak, and will probably continue for a while, after which Tony Smith will probably have a clear idea of what he wishes his playing staff to look like for next season, and then, hopefully with finances sorted out, the club can start recriutment again.

You're very clued up on HMRC stuff - when do the club have to pay the back taxes by?

He's not being that silly. I've explained elsewhere how this is likely to affect implicated clubs. But, very simply...you'll still spend to the cap. But some of the players will overnight cost more than they did (to get the same net payment into their pockets or image rights company or employee benefit trust). Which for a club spending to the cap will mean an immediate breach. I don't for one minute think the RFL will penalise past breaches now crystalised as a result, and I assume they will allow some limited transition. But, going forward, I fear one or two clubs in particular - ones maybe who appeared to be getting a lot more bang for their bucks - may have to trim their player spending to accommodate.

Incidentally, the Operational Rules for the Salary Cap make it clear its the GROSS value of any image rights or EBT payments, not the net.

I'll go away now, but I suspect one or two may have occasion to remember what I said in the not too distant future.

Not a clue when it'll have to be paid, however, I can't honestly see a £100k + tax demand being met with a casual shrug of the shoulders, and the letter being slung onto the 'to do later' pile , can you?

Why won't they just up the cap ? (Not massively, but it's been reduced slughtly in recent years, just bump it back up, problem solved, 10 clubs are affected anyhow, so it's only four who aren't, two of which are new, and spending knowhere near cap etc.)

As a club, it's been said before that financially, transparency wise, we lead the way. With that in mind, i'm not worried one jott. For all our on field problems, off the field we've never had an issue.

I doubt it but I have no idea what tax demand has been sent to the club, or what discussions have gone in relation to it, so it's difficult to guage their reaction. You seem to know as you suggest the clubs are sorting out finances as we speak.

Not having a go by the way.

I agree, but it won't stop the simple fact that we owe the taxman some cash.

Remember back to the Johns deal??...That was the most obvious example of this 'image rights' situation.....You really reckon all those tacky Johns soveniers were just to celebrate the great man's short stint??...

I have a feeling they might - especially if it transpires that Leeds are implicated.

My gut feel is that most clubs are implicated a bit over image rights, but only a handful are seriously implicated over particularly large image rights and/or also use of overseas employee benefits trusts. I SUSPECT that it was those clubs to which the "six figure sum" comment in that article referred.

Although not directed at me, I can maybe help? From memory:

HMRC issue a letter or report to the taxpayer setting out what they have determined. They then invite the taxpayer to offer a settlement - usually having set out what sort of settlement they are looking for. If the taxpayer accepts - it can be after negotiating - then HMRC determine the amount, including interest and penalties (there will always be penalties, but there is a list of factors which can mitigate the penalty). The taxpayer then agrees this in writing, and that becomes a contract between the taxpayer and HMRC. NOT a criminal situation but a settled civil action. That agreement sets out the agreed payment date/s. For smaller amounts IIRC you get 30 days to pay, but I'm sure you'd try and negotiate longer for large sums.

Hope that helps.

good memory!

I reckon its fair to say that this situation has been going on for a while, so its very possible that Wire are at the 'paying the bill' stage??

If so, a sudden influx of cash, possibly from a transfer, would come in highly useful??...

Just ask SJM nicely and make sure we say please.

Well, Gleeson was his buy in the first place, so any cash back on him surely belongs to SJM??.....Like I say, the timing of this transfer is surely no coincidence with all this tax talk?

I thought it came from that Foden gift. I doubt it was a loan.

Oooooohhh, the mysterious world of high finance...

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.