TOPIC:

westaussieguy wrote:

That is also my understanding, that superannuation cannot be paid to a person directly. Simply doesn't happen that way. Amounts need to be directed to a nominated fund as it normally is.
It all sounds like a storm in a tea cup.

No it doesn't, who pays Super directly to the individual ? Answer.....no one does !!!

Are players staff or contractors? If they are contractors they’d be responsible for paying their own super. Probably a few extra tax benefits if they are contractors rather than staff. 

 

Seems a bit ridiculous we're worried about these things. Doesn't the points system make money less of an advantage? 

Punishment should not be premiership point deduction but recruiting points deduction. Leave the comp's competitiveness in tact. 

Perth should be allowed to pay whatever they want and recruit whomever they want. No restrictions. 

Tiger Tales wrote:

Are players staff or contractors? If they are contractors they’d be responsible for paying their own super. Probably a few extra tax benefits if they are contractors rather than staff. 


 

Employees I think. That's how clubs made a killing from Jobkeeper.

Johnny Leonard wrote:

Seems a bit ridiculous we're worried about these things. Doesn't the points system make money less of an advantage? 

Punishment should not be premiership point deduction but recruiting points deduction. Leave the comp's competitiveness in tact. 

Perth should be allowed to pay whatever they want and recruit whomever they want. No restrictions. 

I like that last paragraph JL. I'm pretty sure the Marvin report recommended something like that. Top clubs restricted from recruiting while the bottom clubs given extra points and salary cap concessions. Does the commission ever act on these costly independent reviews and implement them?

Wafl club players would be employees, that makes them staff. That is my understanding of it.
If they were working for a fast food joint, fuel company or some small business that is a franchise, they could be employed as either staff or contracter depending on the business model. Hope that makes sense.

I would let this season continue and impose four game penalty at the start of next year. This would leave them fifth at most.

This will be very interesting to see if the same penalty applies as SFFC?

Senior Seagull wrote:

Listening to the post game radio review, the EF issue is, allegedly, that they paid the super to certain players twice, once to their nominated fund and a second lot to the player directly, which if true, and we do need to wait until some official confirmation, is out of order as you cant pay super direct to a person in my understanding. An external audit discovered this and advised EF who then advised the WAFC or the other way round. The report then went on to say it was technically not a salary cap rort as Super is separate from a salary, so if thats the case, EF might escape the massive penalties applied to SF who's salary cap rort must have been significant. Either way the timing is unfortunate as it's cast a shadow over what promised to be a ripping finals round. Could the WAFC have delayed the announcement? Maybe but these organisations leak like a sieve, so as soon as it gets to a journo, JT in this case, it's going to go public.


As i said, that info is second hand from a radio report, I'm sure a proper clarification will come from the WAFC shortly.

Paying people their Super Guarantee direct, um that is basically illegal under super law and is clearly a "bonus" additional payment outside of the declared salary so would be a breach 100%, 

They may well have the ATO stalking them as well over super law issues.

I am told its around 20K worth SF got smashed for 10K over. 

Get rid of the entire salary cap BS.

Total free market. cut the red tape.