Printable View
I take your point alright the player is liable for the BIK, I was just pointing out that some people, not so much you in that post, tend not to factor in these things when talking about a player's wages. They should be really thinking about his cost to the club. Either way there was a pretty big incentive to be trying to get rid of him.
pretty big alright :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Longfordian
Even allowing for the car and the rent and the tax he has to pay as BIK, the cost to Pats looks to be on the 2500+ side ?
Massive money for the eircom League!
However, IF you have a backer who is willing to write off large amounts of cash to pay the wages then I don't see the problem. The 65% rule will be enough to safeguard the future of the clubs as that money going across to Pats CAN'T be as a loan so if someone is silly enough to pay Keane 3K a week then that's his problem.
It does drive up wages around the rest of the league but nothing forcing everyone to pay them.
The most shocking thing to me is why Pats don't have a stronger team with those wages at the club!! A lot of average Joes in that side in my opinion.
Is there value for money at Pats?
Every team needs "ordinary joes", and of course they are paid likewise.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
Could Pats loan him out to Leinster as a reserve prop? Could they argue he was signed as a rugby footballer?
Well Pats are reported to be paying wages at around 125% of what Shels were paying back in 2005 or 2006.
I know which team I'd prefer! and even at that we were throwing money at players that didn't even make the bench for 90% of the season.
Reported. I wouldn't believe all that was reported back then, and certainly don't now.Quote:
Originally Posted by higgins
BTW his payoff would be cased on loss of earnings so if he signed for some one else, he wouldn't get full wages. A once off settlement is likely