: Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:52 am  

According to todays League Express Warrington are being pursued by HMRC for a six figure sum by HMRC.
This could explain them releasing Gleeson for the £100K transfer fee.

Two other clubs are also thought to have been in negotiations with HMRC over the same issue.

: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:25 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

According to todays League Express Warrington are being pursued by HMRC for a six figure sum by HMRC.
This could explain them releasing Gleeson for the £100K transfer fee.

Two other clubs are also thought to have been in negotiations with HMRC over the same issue.

£100k, that is nothing. Simon Moran can open the ashtray in his car, pull out £100k and erase this very easily.

: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:32 am  

Supreme Sydney2002 wrote:

£100k, that is nothing. Simon Moran can open the ashtray in his car, pull out £100k and erase this very easily.

Tis true! I think getting shut of gleeson is more about harmonising the dressing room than anything else

: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:37 am  

Saint Simon wrote:

Tis true! I think getting shut of gleeson is more about harmonising the dressing room than anything else

Gleeson is a dab hand with the guitar, he could harmonise any dressing room with a rendition of "The saints, are coming"...foolowed by "valerieeeeeeeeee"

: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:38 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

It can be done. Tax can be collected from up to 3 tax years in arrears.(It maybe more)

Look at the date in was in the Guardian, so it may not be 100% true.

I think it's a bit dodgy making something retrospectively illegal. How can you penalise clubs for doing something that was legal at the time?

The more serious question is for clubs that are tied into paying someone for perhaps the next 3 years in this way. If they can't use the loophole then presumably they'll go over the cap?

: Mon Apr 06, 2009 9:42 am  

Harry Pinner wrote:

I think it's a bit dodgy making something retrospectively illegal. How can you penalise clubs for doing something that was legal at the time?

The more serious question is for clubs that are tied into paying someone for perhaps the next 3 years in this way. If they can't use the loophole then presumably they'll go over the cap?

They may have not changed the rules. If they are merely "enforcing or clarifying" them then back tax will be claimed.

That appears what is happening regarding Warrington and other club.

: Mon Apr 06, 2009 10:00 am  

Harry Pinner wrote:

I think it's a bit dodgy making something retrospectively illegal. How can you penalise clubs for doing something that was legal at the time?

The more serious question is for clubs that are tied into paying someone for perhaps the next 3 years in this way. If they can't use the loophole then presumably they'll go over the cap?

This is the whole issue. If they have changed the rules, nothing is owed. If it is deemed to be tax evasion then alot of club will owe a few quid