PC

Coach
  • Content count

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

17 Good

About PC

  • Birthday 10/14/1976

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Middlesbrough
  • Interests
    RL, and the Bradford Bulls
  1. As an engineering contractor, I don’t have a lot of choice. Employers pretty much demand that you are a Limited Company. Yes, there are certain things I offset against tax, but there’s not that much these days. Of course, if the government want to make it a legal requirement that contractors receive the same holiday pay, sick pay, employment rights and out of work benefits that permanent staff get, then that’s a different scenario. Somehow I can’t see that happening. All that will happen is that contractors and agency staff will endeavour to go permanent, but this will create a number of issues. Various parts of the economy rely on contract staff. In my field of engineering, a lot of a companies business is project based, and there are peaks and troughs associated with this. Contract staff take up the slack when needed, and move on when not needed. The NHS and councils use a fairly large number of agency staff in front line nursing and social work roles. New rules mean that they will have to pay the same tax an NI as a permanent staff member. Most of these people will sack of agency work, meaning that there will be a shortage of frontline staff, but more pressure on already overstretched services. I may pay a smaller percentage of tax, but due to the higher rate that I earn, I will pay more tax as an absolute figure. Pushing people to permanent may actually result in a smaller tax take by HMRC. As you said, the idea isn’t really to punish people like myself, but we inevitably get caught in the crossfire. While the high earners it’s aimed have enough money to pay a decent tax consultant and find new ways of avoiding paying tax. Sorry to go off topic there, but I just felt the need to rant.
  2. Yes, they've dropped the tax free threshold from £5,000 to £2,000. That's a hell of a drop, and I will suffer, personally. Why the government are on this drive to equalise the tax structures for contract and permanent staff is beyond me.
  3. Just because the RFL have been instrumental in getting a Bradford club resurrected, doesn't mean that they haven't been woefully inept in the process. Personally, I don't think they've covered themselves in glory with regards to the Bulls since the first administration under Hood.
  4. This is the same RFL who gave the go ahead to the OK Bulls, but with a years SKY funding withheld.
  5. Anyway, when's the press conference?
  6. Absolutely. However, if his comments regarding the RFL not asking him basic questions are true, then it just reiterates my belief that the Chalmers bid, if that is the successful bid, was always going to get the nod, as it had been previously approved by the RFL. If that’s the case, why waste two weeks asking for submissions, waste other peoples time and money, continue the uncertainty for staff and players and give other clubs the opportunity to sign the Bulls best players? For me, the RFL are not fit for purpose. Wood and Rimmer should have been allowed nowhere near the RFL after the mess they made of running their clubs. Is it any surprise the game is in the mess it is when you consider the mess that was made of Halifax and the Huddersfield/Sheffield merger?
  7. Exactly. Looking for businesses on Companies House means nothing. It costs £25 and a bit of time to do it yourself. I was half tempted to list a Bulls related company on there myself, just for mischief.
  8. If it is Chalmers, and it's pretty well known that they were the approved RFL over Christmas, why the whole charade over the last 2 weeks? We could have stopped all this hassle, and the Bulls would still have had a decent squad.
  9. And the RFL have take one last chance to act like morons. They've agreed the buyer, they now who it is, but are not telling the players. According to Martin Sadler they're phoning LE for information. Absolute farce.
  10. Like the time London went into admin and received no punishment whatsoever.
  11. Is the possible relegation another Bulls specific punishment, as this has never been threatened before.
  12. Dunno. But why punish people who are blamess?
  13. Nope, the owners are at fault. But the RFL approve the owners. It's like club chairmen who sack coaches 'cos they're rubbish. But who hires the coach? And shouldn't they take some responsibility?
  14. I would also like to point the finger at the RFL for withholding a seasons worth of sky money. I would love someone to explain to me how withholding £1.2m from a club with financial issues was a good idea. I can't any club without a sugar daddy survive that.