+- +-

+-Newcomers Start Here

+-Harlequins/Rugby Links












+-Articles






Author Topic: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?  (Read 4545 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

QuincyJones

  • First Squad
  • ***
  • Posts: 67
Re: Have Saracens broken salary cap rules?
« Reply #15 on: Monday 04-Mar-2019, 13:36* »
Not sure where you get the idea that someone has been given a house.

Let me put this is simpler terms:

A company set up to invest in property may require loans and/or mortgages to buy said properties. These are known as "liabilities", whilst the properties themselves are "assets". If the ownership of the company is transferred by way of sale, then usually both assets and liabilities will be transferred with the company. As long as fair value is paid for the company, it's legit. If however fair value isn't paid, or assets are undervalued, then it's not legit.

Regarding loans, if someone has given a loan to the company and/or its directors then there will be terms attached, to govern repayment periods, interest charged etc. It may be that interest is at a rate preferable to market, but this would then be seen as a taxable benefit (if it's done via the employer). What is questionable is if Wray were to fund the loan personally, in which case I suspect this may raise the eyebrows of PRL.

Ultimately, unless loans are given without repayment, then nobody is "giving a house" to anyone else. If you look at the accounts filed by the Vunipola's company, you'll see they have liabilities due after more than 12 months - this is how the bulk mortgage liabilities are shown. Hence, I strongly doubt that anyone was "given a house".

Now, you could look at Land Registry records and see purchase price paid for properties, see who the vendor was, see if the price paid reflected fair market value, see who is guaranteeing the mortgage (usually hinted at by way of charges registered) and then work out of any benefits have been bestowed; but that's a long way from "giving a house" to someone.

The article notes that Wray was the owner of the house in which Schalk Brits lived since 2011 and it is not known whether or not he paid rent. So if he didn't pay rent, or his rent was subsidised, the value of this would have to be declared and included as part of his salary under the cap.

Lots of ways they can manipulate things and it looks on the face of it, like they have.

 

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 
Forgot your password?

+-Site Statistics

Members
Total Members: 671
Latest: SAW0001
New This Month: 4
New This Week: 0
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 28015
Total Topics: 1691
Most Online Today: 126
Most Online Ever: 455
(Saturday 22-Sep-2018, 17:51*)
Users Online
Members: 16
Guests: 68
Total: 84