|
Post by Neshead on Nov 29, 2020 18:44:10 GMT
"Salary, for the purpose of these Salary Cap Rules, means the total of all amounts referred to in paragraph 2 of this Schedule 1, whether they are paid or payable (or in the case of a benefit in kind, provided or to be provided) directly or indirectly onshore or offshore by or on behalf of a Club or any Connected Party of the Club to or in respect of a Salary Cap Player or any Connected Party of the Salary Cap Player (save where that payment or benefit in kind is an Excluded Item)." So you can't have any payment or benefit provided by any Connected Party of the club - this is defined in schedule 4 and includes "any person who is a director, shareholder or employee of that Club or any close relative of any such director, shareholder or employee" which rules out Rupp and "any sponsor of that Club" which rules out JCT. Just pay them in brown bags like St Helen used to do.
|
|
|
Post by tetchyarse on Nov 29, 2020 21:49:23 GMT
The Football League covered most loopholes off, so no, we couldn't do what Saracens did and give players free houses and "part shares in a property business".
The loophole doesn't seem to prevent us taking on Mrs Player as a brand ambassador, though...
|
|
|
Post by bantam147 on Nov 29, 2020 21:53:05 GMT
There are always ways to bend certain rules, without breaking them. But even putting that to one side, it doesn't detract from the key principles that need to be put in order.
|
|
|
Post by tetchyarse on Nov 29, 2020 21:56:12 GMT
Every penny that goes the players way, directly or indirectly, counts towards the cap, pay his rent, school fees, missus’ wages or even a bag of dolly mix for the bus home, salary cap. I don’t see how the rent thing could be considered within the salary cap. Nothing to stop players renting property and nothing to stop a private landlord arrangement between Rupp and players. Nominal rental fee of £1 per month. HMRC wouldn't like that very much and would consider any arrangement where an employee pays a peppercorn rent to be taxable and declarable on the P11D. We could just do what Boston Utd did and give people brown envelopes?
|
|
|
Post by rahicscissorbudget on Nov 29, 2020 23:09:57 GMT
"Salary, for the purpose of these Salary Cap Rules, means the total of all amounts referred to in paragraph 2 of this Schedule 1, whether they are paid or payable (or in the case of a benefit in kind, provided or to be provided) directly or indirectly onshore or offshore by or on behalf of a Club or any Connected Party of the Club to or in respect of a Salary Cap Player or any Connected Party of the Salary Cap Player (save where that payment or benefit in kind is an Excluded Item)." So you can't have any payment or benefit provided by any Connected Party of the club - this is defined in schedule 4 and includes "any person who is a director, shareholder or employee of that Club or any close relative of any such director, shareholder or employee" which rules out Rupp and "any sponsor of that Club" which rules out JCT. Imagine if a company registered in Guernsey or the Caymans just so happened to own a load of houses in Harrogate that a load of Bradford City players just so happened to rent.
|
|
|
Post by Pyongyang Bantam on Nov 29, 2020 23:36:05 GMT
"Salary, for the purpose of these Salary Cap Rules, means the total of all amounts referred to in paragraph 2 of this Schedule 1, whether they are paid or payable (or in the case of a benefit in kind, provided or to be provided) directly or indirectly onshore or offshore by or on behalf of a Club or any Connected Party of the Club to or in respect of a Salary Cap Player or any Connected Party of the Salary Cap Player (save where that payment or benefit in kind is an Excluded Item)." So you can't have any payment or benefit provided by any Connected Party of the club - this is defined in schedule 4 and includes "any person who is a director, shareholder or employee of that Club or any close relative of any such director, shareholder or employee" which rules out Rupp and "any sponsor of that Club" which rules out JCT. Imagine if a company registered in Guernsey or the Caymans just so happened to own a load of houses in Harrogate that a load of Bradford City players just so happened to rent. Can't figure out if you're being rhetorical or hypothetical
|
|
|
Post by jdc on Nov 30, 2020 2:28:04 GMT
"Salary, for the purpose of these Salary Cap Rules, means the total of all amounts referred to in paragraph 2 of this Schedule 1, whether they are paid or payable (or in the case of a benefit in kind, provided or to be provided) directly or indirectly onshore or offshore by or on behalf of a Club or any Connected Party of the Club to or in respect of a Salary Cap Player or any Connected Party of the Salary Cap Player (save where that payment or benefit in kind is an Excluded Item)." So you can't have any payment or benefit provided by any Connected Party of the club - this is defined in schedule 4 and includes "any person who is a director, shareholder or employee of that Club or any close relative of any such director, shareholder or employee" which rules out Rupp and "any sponsor of that Club" which rules out JCT. Imagine if a company registered in Guernsey or the Caymans just so happened to own a load of houses in Harrogate that a load of Bradford City players just so happened to rent. It covers onshore and offshore payments and benefits, and it includes anything paid or provided on behalf of a Club or Connected Party of the Club. I can't see how the Caymans registration helps here. @tetchy It does cover Connected Parties of the Player, so paying a player's wife or girlfriend might be tricky. I can't see anything that specifically bans us from employing a player's relative but I reckon the EFL might ask a few questions if we took on three new brand ambassadors at 50k a year each every season.
|
|
|
Post by rahicscissorbudget on Nov 30, 2020 7:39:20 GMT
Imagine if a company registered in Guernsey or the Caymans just so happened to own a load of houses in Harrogate that a load of Bradford City players just so happened to rent. It covers onshore and offshore payments and benefits, and it includes anything paid or provided on behalf of a Club or Connected Party of the Club. I can't see how the Caymans registration helps here. @tetchy It does cover Connected Parties of the Player, so paying a player's wife or girlfriend might be tricky. I can't see anything that specifically bans us from employing a player's relative but I reckon the EFL might ask a few questions if we took on three new brand ambassadors at 50k a year each every season. In the Cayman Islands, nobody can hear who owns you.
|
|
|
Post by jdc on Nov 30, 2020 19:56:32 GMT
It covers onshore and offshore payments and benefits, and it includes anything paid or provided on behalf of a Club or Connected Party of the Club. I can't see how the Caymans registration helps here. @tetchy It does cover Connected Parties of the Player, so paying a player's wife or girlfriend might be tricky. I can't see anything that specifically bans us from employing a player's relative but I reckon the EFL might ask a few questions if we took on three new brand ambassadors at 50k a year each every season. In the Cayman Islands, nobody can hear who owns you. I think they can now: www.step.org/industry-news/cayman-islands-public-can-now-inspect-lists-company-directors-kyd50-feeAlthough tbf it does say you can't view it online and someone has to physically go to the General Registry to view the documents. I suppose there might still be somewhere that hides directors identities but I still think we'd be liable to get caught out. You need to be competent to hide shit like that, and we're not (if we were, we probably wouldn't need to talk about buying promotion by cheating the system).
|
|
|
Post by jdc on Nov 30, 2020 20:06:29 GMT
Meanwhile, away from this parallel world where we're interested in spending decent money on players, we still haven't reached the salary cap. If we felt like buying the league, we could in theory have spent the full cap and then signed a bunch of shit-hot youngsters from Premier League team who wouldn't have counted towards the cap - u-21 players are exempt.
|
|
|
Post by Lethal Jizzle on Nov 30, 2020 20:38:51 GMT
Meanwhile, away from this parallel world where we're interested in spending decent money on players, we still haven't reached the salary cap. If we felt like buying the league, we could in theory have spent the full cap and then signed a bunch of shit-hot youngsters from Premier League team who wouldn't have counted towards the cap - u-21 players are exempt. Don't you dare bring any common sense to anything Bradford City, it's not allowed, get that bloody head back in the sand and pray there's 2 worse teams than us.
|
|