Salary Redirection Agreement: Fill & Download for Free

He’s ‘got us where he wants us’? The EU made many compromises to keep the UK in the EU. The massive expansion to the east was mostly at Britain’s insistence for example. The ‘refund’ that Thatcher managed to negotiate etc. AHEM …… It is The UK that is withdrawing. The EU didnt force this. Its a unilateral British decision (well by a majority of a few percent anyway). The unpalatable situation that the Brits have got themselves into is of their own doing. Its a hell of a statement to suggest that the EU is somehow treating the UK unfairly because THEY CHOSE TO LEAVE!!Amazingly [a new study has found that a majority of voters (42%) believed the “we send the EU £350m a week - let’s fund our NHS instead” message to still be true. Just 36% believed it to be false, while 22% were unsure]- this from a UK survey a few months ago. WOW. 42% is not a majority but still, it is astonishing that so many still believe that Farage/Johnson/Gove outright lie.Can’t blame Barnier or anyone in the EU for this. This whole mess is made in Britain.Take responsibility for the consequences of your decisions. But then this is the Farage of the red bus lie about money from EU payments to be redirected to the NHS, which he then repudiated as soon the Brexit vote happened.Is this the same Nigel Farage who was an 18-year member of the European Parliament, from which he draws more than €100,000 in salary plus a €300-a-day living allowance, yet was ranked 748 out of 751 for attendance?Is this the same Farage who, in all that time, did not learn one word of French?Is this the same Farage who will be entitled to an annual pension of £73,000 when he reaches the age of 63 from the EU he constantly dumps upon?Is this the same Farage two of whose children have German passports, which would allow them to take advantage of free movement rights post-Brexit, but insists they feel British rather than European?There are two words for this guy - OUTRIGHT HYPOCRITE.

For a feature film, the process would usually be:1) Send Actor's Agent script2) Actor approves of project.3) Producer sends contract to Agent.4) Agent negotiates terms.5)Producer and Agent reach agreement (or not) and contract is signed.It all starts with a script and an idea more than a good offer (although...). Most Actors are looking primarily for a good role in a good project. Something to advance their careers, perhaps something to redirect their careers (i.e. perhaps they've been typecast and wish to break away from that in a different sort of role) and occasionally, just a fun project with good people involved.As to how negotiable the terms are, that depends on the project's budget, the Actor's 'worth' and the options available to both parties. If your film's budget is ten million dollars total, and the Actor is debuting in this film, their Agent can request a million dollar fee all they want, but it's not happening. If the Actor is a certified celebrity and your budget is twenty million, well then they just might get that fee and a few things besides. In a nutshell, the terms are infinitely negotiable, and infinitely fixed, depending on the situation but most Agents will try to haggle for perks and cash and most Producers will push back. That's the game.Usual terms within a contract:Salary/feeDuration of employmentPoints (i.e. a percentage of gross or net profits for the talent)Billing (i.e. does the Actor get 'top billing' or a special credit)Publicity (something like approval of all publicity shots to be used via the Agent as well as requirements on the talent for publicity (interviews, conferences, premiere attendance et al))Accomodation (e.g. what standard of hotel is required etc)Allowances (e.g. meal allowances, travel allowances etc)Talent release (pretty essential, allows the Production Company the right to use the talent's likeness (i.e. use them in the film))All of the above, half of the above, one or two of the above and six different things, it's all changeable depending on circumstance. Those items are pretty standard though.I regret I can't give you a step by step real story as I'd not want to fall foul of any confidentiality agreements (or just generally piss anyone off!). But in any case, I hope this sort of answers the question?

I will assume that by "professional athletes," you are referring to MLB, NFL, NBA, and NHL athletes and not baseball farm league players, Major League Soccer, or the WNBA. By "actors" and "musicians," I assume that you are actually referring to famous "movie stars" and musicians who sell out stadiums -- the sorts of people you'd see in the pages of a magazine. I absolutely guarantee you that most professional actors and musicians are working day jobs and doing whatever they have to do to make ends meet.Let's make this question more specific: should an Army PFC make more than an NFL Rookie? A Private First Class is pay grade E3 and, with the less than two years of service, gets a base annual salary of $21,664.80. (http://www.goarmy.com/benefits/money/basic-pay-active-duty-soldiers.html) Per the NFL collective bargaining agreement, the rookie minimum salary is $375,000. (http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/07/25/minimum-salaries-shoot-up-under-new-deal/)At a basic level, there's two ways to achieve this:Military service members make more. We currently spend about $140 billion on military personnel. To keep my life reasonably simple, we're going to keep everything to scale. An NFL Rookie makes 17.3 times as much as an Army PFC, so we'd have to raise the military personnel budget to $2.4 trillion dollars. For context: that's about a trillion dollars more than the U.S. Federal Government spends on Social Security and Medicare combined. You could expect to completely scrap both of these extraordinarily popular programs and still raise taxes a ton.Pro-athletes make less. If we're going this way, then I still think that players need to get their fair share of the revenue that comes to the sports leagues. We don't cut player pay and let owners keep the profits; we radically reduce all revenue going to the NFL. We take the league's $9 billion in annual revenue and reduce it by a factor of 17.3 to $520 million. If the vast majority of the American population completely stopped watching sports on television (for which advertisers pay hefty fees to networks who pay hefty fees to leagues & teams) and if people mostly stop spending money on live sporting events and licensed goods & apparel, then that could work. It's a free market and people get to make choices! There are certainly a lot fewer NFL players than there are military service members, so that makes the gap to close a lot smaller. In order to honor the question, though, we have to stipulate that the money no longer being spent on the NFL isn't getting redirected to other sports leagues or cultural touchstones like movies, theater, and music. Could happen... but not going to... especially since there is a ton of value that stems from a vibrant civic life.Underlying this oft- pondered question (and its many variants) is a serious contemplation of the comparative value we collectively place on those who serve & sacrifice versus those who amuse & entertain. It's a very good question, and I don't have any truly satisfying answer. If you personally want to take steps to improve the balance and express your values, I suggest that you make a donation to the USO. Amongst the many great things they do, your donation can go to support very welcome amusement & entertainment for those who serve & sacrifice.