WWW.RLFANS.COM https://rlfans.com/forums/ |
|
Refusing to countenance image rights? https://rlfans.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=446967 |
Page 1 of 2 |
Author: | MrPhilb [ Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:21 am ] |
Post subject: | Refusing to countenance image rights? |
Reading the League Express this morning about Matt King at Warrington and his views on big name aussies heading over here it said this Quote:King is one of a handful of former NRL players in Super League to suffer financially with his club Warrington, along with Hull Kingston Rovers, refusing to countenance image rights contracts. Any ideas on what that actually means? |
Author: | Digger_the_Dog [ Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:29 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Refusing to countenance image rights? |
MrPhilb wrote:Reading the League Express this morning about Matt King at Warrington and his views on big name aussies heading over here it said this Any ideas on what that actually means? I think it means the clubs insist the players image belongs to them and therefore limits any sponsorship or promotional stuff the player can make money from for example Jon Wilkin and Steeden and Kev Sinfield with Optimum. I remember Jon Goddard (I think it was him) having an issue with it a few years back, cant remember why. If I was paying the players the money they are getting I think I would want a cut of all image rights or sponsorship deals too, cant fault Wire or Rovers for that. |
Author: | SirStan [ Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:31 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Refusing to countenance image rights? |
Looks like Matt King's promotional work for the Simpsons movie has been a waste of time! |
Author: | Hutchie [ Mon Mar 01, 2010 10:33 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Refusing to countenance image rights? |
Digger_the_Dog wrote:I think it means the clubs insist the players image belongs to them and therefore limits any sponsorship or promotional stuff the player can make money from for example Jon Wilkin and Steeden and Kev Sinfield with Optimum. I remember Jon Goddard (I think it was him) having an issue with it a few years back, cant remember why. If I was paying the players the money they are getting I think I would want a cut of all image rights or sponsorship deals too, cant fault Wire or Rovers for that. that caused you any problems with Matty Dale ? |
Author: | Digger_the_Dog [ Mon Mar 01, 2010 11:03 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Refusing to countenance image rights? |
Hutchie wrote:that caused you any problems with Matty Dale ? No mate, neither Featherstone or the Chinese National team were bothered |
Author: | Gordon Gekko [ Mon Mar 01, 2010 1:42 pm ] |
Post subject: | Re: Refusing to countenance image rights? |
Digger_the_Dog wrote:No mate, neither Featherstone or the Chinese National team were bothered |
Author: | Adeybull [ Tue Mar 02, 2010 12:49 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Refusing to countenance image rights? |
It is more likely to mean that his original contract (where, incidentally, we believe Wire gazumped Bulls...) included a very substantial element for his image rights. Funnily enough, HMRC have been challenging these, since contracts structured in this way save a load of tax (I will explain how if anyone is that interested), so the club can get a lot more player for a given salary cap spend. It is widely assumed around the game that Wire are a club that are especially exposed to back tax assessments because of this tactic. It is also speculated...shall we say...that Wire have now had to retreat from this strategy, because of the HMRC investigations, and have said the tax problem is the players' so certain players have been landed with a significant after-tax pay cut. And they were not happy. Allegedly. Maybe this has happened at your place too? There is of course the related issue, which is that if HMRC are successful then there will be tax and NIC to "gross up". Which will mean that the salary cap cost for affected players for prior years will suddenly go up a lot. Which means that some clubs will by implication have breached the salary cap for prior years... |
Author: | SirStan [ Tue Mar 02, 2010 7:59 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Refusing to countenance image rights? |
Adeybull wrote:...........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz (I will explain how if anyone is that interested) No takers?....... |
Author: | Jake the Peg [ Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:31 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Refusing to countenance image rights? |
Adeybull wrote:It is more likely to mean that his original contract (where, incidentally, we believe Wire gazumped Bulls...) included a very substantial element for his image rights. Funnily enough, HMRC have been challenging these, since contracts structured in this way save a load of tax (I will explain how if anyone is that interested), so the club can get a lot more player for a given salary cap spend. It is widely assumed around the game that Wire are a club that are especially exposed to back tax assessments because of this tactic. It is also speculated...shall we say...that Wire have now had to retreat from this strategy, because of the HMRC investigations, and have said the tax problem is the players' so certain players have been landed with a significant after-tax pay cut. And they were not happy. Allegedly. Maybe this has happened at your place too? There is of course the related issue, which is that if HMRC are successful then there will be tax and NIC to "gross up". Which will mean that the salary cap cost for affected players for prior years will suddenly go up a lot. Which means that some clubs will by implication have breached the salary cap for prior years... So the implication is rovers and warrington's overseas players may be hit with a lrgere than expected tax bill and/or receive less than they expected? |
Author: | Mrs Barista [ Tue Mar 02, 2010 8:43 am ] |
Post subject: | Re: Refusing to countenance image rights? |
Jake the Peg wrote:So the implication is rovers and warrington's overseas players may be hit with a lrgere than expected tax bill and/or receive less than they expected? Plus salary cap breach implications. Although even if technically this were the case, would have thought it unlikely that sanctions would be forthcoming given that the live cap means this sort of thing is supposed to be audited. |
Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |