Premiership Rugby says it will punish any clubs found to be breaking the salary cap...????

Premiership Rugby says it will punish any clubs found to be breaking the salary cap but insists it has no evidence the practice is rife in the game. Despite a flurry of complaints from several leading coaches that certain teams are cheating the system, officials claim all 12 clubs are currently sticking to the rules and are "acutely aware" their financial affairs are being closely scrutinised.

Saracens' recent high-profile signings of James Johnston and Billy Vunipola from Harlequins and London Wasps respectively have reignited the smouldering debate, with many struggling to understand precisely how Sarries can assemble such an extensive roster of Test players within this season's wage cap of £4.5m. The club strongly reject any suggestion of wrongdoing and, with John Smit and Carlos Nieto set to leave at the end of the season, do have some leeway when it comes to recruiting players.

Phil Winstanley, PRL's rugby director, concedes he has heard the "rumours" but says he remains "very confident" the cap is not being routinely abused. "We are very much aware of what's going on within each club," he said. "Until we can prove otherwise then as far as I'm concerned there is no breach of the salary cap.

"Are we aware of the rumours? Of course we are. I'm not naive. It's not falling on deaf ears. But we have a robust system with extensive powers. I'm not going to talk about individual clubs but every club is subject to them. This is a regular topic at our board meetings … every club is completely aware of the process and the potential sanctions."

London Irish's Brian Smith, nevertheless, has publicly alleged that more than one English club is abusing the salary cap and Harlequins' Conor O'Shea has implied something similar. Winstanley did hint there had been minor problems in the past but declined to go into specific details. The rugby league side Melbourne Storm were stripped of two Premiership titles in Australia in 2010 after being found to have routinely breached their salary cap but, to date, there has been no such scandal in English rugby union. "There have been issues that we've addressed but our policy is not to make that public," said Winstanley. "We don't want to wash our dirty linen in public."

There remains no shortage of frustration, even so, at Wasps and Quins. Vunipola was under a certain amount of family pressure to join his brother Mako at Sarries but the Wasps coach, Dai Young, was still "hugely disappointed" by his decision. "Billy is a player the club identified some time ago as one with huge potential and he's been developed by London Wasps into one of the brightest young talents in English rugby," he said.

O'Shea, meanwhile, confirmed Quins could not satisfy Johnston's financial demands. "We are very disappointed to lose a player of James's ability," said O'Shea. "Unfortunately, given the constraints of the salary cap, we were unable to meet his financial expectations so he has decided to move on at the end of the current season."

maestegmafia wrote: Conor O'Shea has implied something similar.

...

O'Shea, meanwhile, confirmed Quins could not satisfy Johnston's financial demands.

Quote at all for the first sentance? All i've seen him say is that with Quins couldn't meet JJ's expected price tag, that in itself can't really be taken as implication that other clubs are breaking the salary cap.

Would be good to have a source for this article, especially given the delicate nature of the subject and legal issues.

Well it's an easy slur to throw around and as long as nothing specific is said it's hard to defend against.

As soon as somebody talks about 'certain clubs' everybody thinks of Sarries (now) or Bath/Leicester (a while back).

It's a bit like asking somebody 'have you stop beating your wife'?

And it helps the self image of a club after they have been beaten by some one and the usual excuses (ref,weather,injuries etc etc) are invalid to turn to insinuating that the opponents victory is questionable as they are breaking the salary cap.

And - no, I'm not a Sarries supporter.

It's an article in the Guardian

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/15/premiership-rugby-salary-cap

beardybrain wrote:It's an article in the Guardian

http://m.guardian.co.uk/sport/2013/jan/15/premiership-rugby-salary-cap

Cheers.

Its certainly true that some clubs must spend more than others. Its also true that some clubs seem to be able to use the cap better than others.

I would be interested to see what (if anything) isn't included in the cap.

A few years ago during a period where there were various rumblings around about the cap being broken, the cap jumped from something like £2.5m to £4m in 1 season (2008?). The cynic in me says that was because a lot of the clubs were breaking the cap.

It is now widely know that many ' amateur' players were no such thing 15 years ago or so. Maybe in a few years time things will be a bit more open on the cap too.

I should imagine that no club actually breaks the salary cap, however I would not be suprised if some clubs were not actively looking for loopholes in it - a bit like the difference between tax evaision and tax aviodance.

I saw an article, think it was in Irish times but can't find it now, it was discussing about the English salary cap, it said that a number of teams had breached it and have been fined, but the names of the clubs are never released,

it went into details that your finded by a certain amont depending how much you go over it and can rise points deduction, but only fines had been handed out thus far

There are many ways to break caps that are legit and I am sure some of these are being used.

If a club paid 4m in wages and then another 2m to an advertising company who inturn paid the players for using them in advertising.

the Club is not breaking the cap as they are paying the advertising company. If the players get paid by one or two people it makes no difference to them. Also does the cap include benefit in kind eg cars, houses, etc. I know they are tax able but they aren't paid it therefore I don't think it would be counted as part of the cap.

Could be wrong though.

Are clubs able to offer their players bonuses on top of the salary cap for winning a title, and are those bonuses limited to a percentage of the salary cap?

Brendan wrote:There are many ways to break caps that are legit and I am sure some of these are being used.

If a club paid 4m in wages and then another 2m to an advertising company who inturn paid the players for using them in advertising.

the Club is not breaking the cap as they are paying the advertising company. If the players get paid by one or two people it makes no difference to them. Also does the cap include benefit in kind eg cars, houses, etc. I know they are tax able but they aren't paid it therefore I don't think it would be counted as part of the cap.

Could be wrong though.

Without knowing the specific AP rules, 3rd party payments are often covered by salary caps - for example in the NRL a year or 2 back Benji Marshall wasn't allowed to play an off-season of RU in Japan as that would have topped up (quite a bit) his income and pushed Wests Tigers over the NRL cap.

maestegmafia wrote:Premiership Rugby says it will punish any clubs found to be breaking the salary cap but insists it has no evidence the practice is rife in the game. Despite a flurry of complaints from several leading coaches that certain teams are cheating the system, officials claim all 12 clubs are currently sticking to the rules and are "acutely aware" their financial affairs are being closely scrutinised.

Saracens' recent high-profile signings of James Johnston and Billy Vunipola from Harlequins and London Wasps respectively have reignited the smouldering debate, with many struggling to understand precisely how Sarries can assemble such an extensive roster of Test players within this season's wage cap of £4.5m. The club strongly reject any suggestion of wrongdoing and, with John Smit and Carlos Nieto set to leave at the end of the season, do have some leeway when it comes to recruiting players.

Phil Winstanley, PRL's rugby director, concedes he has heard the "rumours" but says he remains "very confident" the cap is not being routinely abused. "We are very much aware of what's going on within each club," he said. "Until we can prove otherwise then as far as I'm concerned there is no breach of the salary cap.

"Are we aware of the rumours? Of course we are. I'm not naive. It's not falling on deaf ears. But we have a robust system with extensive powers. I'm not going to talk about individual clubs but every club is subject to them. This is a regular topic at our board meetings … every club is completely aware of the process and the potential sanctions."

London Irish's Brian Smith, nevertheless, has publicly alleged that more than one English club is abusing the salary cap and Harlequins' Conor O'Shea has implied something similar. Winstanley did hint there had been minor problems in the past but declined to go into specific details. The rugby league side Melbourne Storm were stripped of two Premiership titles in Australia in 2010 after being found to have routinely breached their salary cap but, to date, there has been no such scandal in English rugby union. "There have been issues that we've addressed but our policy is not to make that public," said Winstanley. "We don't want to wash our dirty linen in public."

There remains no shortage of frustration, even so, at Wasps and Quins. Vunipola was under a certain amount of family pressure to join his brother Mako at Sarries but the Wasps coach, Dai Young, was still "hugely disappointed" by his decision. "Billy is a player the club identified some time ago as one with huge potential and he's been developed by London Wasps into one of the brightest young talents in English rugby," he said.

O'Shea, meanwhile, confirmed Quins could not satisfy Johnston's financial demands. "We are very disappointed to lose a player of James's ability," said O'Shea. "Unfortunately, given the constraints of the salary cap, we were unable to meet his financial expectations so he has decided to move on at the end of the current season."

So, some clubs are abusing the salary cap, just not all the time. Surely, if a club breaks the limit, they should be sanctioned full stop?

Can someone tell me if it is the club that has the cap or the company/mother company who has the cap. If it is only the club company it is easliy by-passed, so as such not broken.

Also I don't think they can cap the amount of money that a company can pay on wages as that is restriction of trade.

Could they be using the dual registration thing with Bedford as a way of getting round paying their younger players?

RDW_Scotland wrote:maestegmafia - I have removed the poll for the time being as it could potentially be seen as libelous and is treading on dangerous ground with the wording. We cannot have people on here accusing clubs of financial wrongdoings and indeed I'm not sure how you expect people on here to know whether they are or not?

RDW

I don't have a problem with that but people's published private polling of opinion can in no way be libellous. It is a gauge of opinion not of debatable fact.

maestegmafia wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:maestegmafia - I have removed the poll for the time being as it could potentially be seen as libelous and is treading on dangerous ground with the wording. We cannot have people on here accusing clubs of financial wrongdoings and indeed I'm not sure how you expect people on here to know whether they are or not?

RDW

I don't have a problem with that but people's published private polling of opinion can in no way be libellous. It is a gauge of opinion not of debatable fact.

Of course it can, otherwise you could just publish any slurs you wanted and just write "in my opinion" at the bottom.

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state. In common law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).[

Im assuming that Smit and Nieto arent on low wages...so that would pretty much cover JJ and Vunipola...or near it ...and as mentioned on other threads...likely that Saul and even possibly Joubert could be on their way.
And with others like Kruis looking a serious player...you never know maybe even Botha's being geared up to ship out...

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:maestegmafia - I have removed the poll for the time being as it could potentially be seen as libelous and is treading on dangerous ground with the wording. We cannot have people on here accusing clubs of financial wrongdoings and indeed I'm not sure how you expect people on here to know whether they are or not?

RDW

I don't have a problem with that but people's published private polling of opinion can in no way be libellous. It is a gauge of opinion not of debatable fact.

Of course it can, otherwise you could just publish any slurs you wanted and just write "in my opinion" at the bottom.

As an aside, over the past few months the admin team have had a couple of requests from lawyers on behalf of well known persons requesting that posts they regarded as libellous be removed. In both cases we got rid of the comments at a rapid rate of knots, and in one case the poster involved (not on the rugby section) served a lengthy ban - that poster actually asked us to double the ban we'd issued when he realised the seriousness of the offence taken by the person. In the modern world people do keep tabs on what's being said about them, and take action where googling leads straight to un-flattering stuff being said about them.

This thread is slightly veering off course but in terms of the cap, maybe a good plan would be to make the exact rules a bit more open? I don't mean reveal what each club is up to, rather a simple list of what is counted and what isn't.

The snide (or not so) digs by the likes of Brian Smith don't help the game at all and maybe a bit more openness would help quell the ill feeling which is clearly present in some areas.

I do sometimes think coaches will spout out there digs without fully understanding another clubs finances, I can guess most are aiming at the tigers despite the amount of times its reported the tigers pay their players less than elsewhere.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:maestegmafia - I have removed the poll for the time being as it could potentially be seen as libelous and is treading on dangerous ground with the wording. We cannot have people on here accusing clubs of financial wrongdoings and indeed I'm not sure how you expect people on here to know whether they are or not?

RDW

I don't have a problem with that but people's published private polling of opinion can in no way be libellous. It is a gauge of opinion not of debatable fact.

Of course it can, otherwise you could just publish any slurs you wanted and just write "in my opinion" at the bottom.

As an aside, over the past few months the admin team have had a couple of requests from lawyers on behalf of well known persons requesting that posts they regarded as libellous be removed. In both cases we got rid of the comments at a rapid rate of knots, and in one case the poster involved (not on the rugby section) served a lengthy ban - that poster actually asked us to double the ban we'd issued when he realised the seriousness of the offence taken by the person. In the modern world people do keep tabs on what's being said about them, and take action where googling leads straight to un-flattering stuff being said about them.

I am well aware that publicly limited clubs and companies contact forum websites over their content. but in this case you are far away from the mark. An opinion poll is not a measure of factual impression.

If, hypothetically, (and I am reasonably sure he does not) I say that Leicester tigers boss gives out free gold rolex watches to referees that would be liable as it frames one persons doing.

Conducting an opinion poll on whether or not people believe that the PRL are in fact knowing or incorrect in their statement that no club in the english premiership is outside the salary cap is not in any way liable whatsoever.... I offered a poll on whether an article published by the Guardian is likely correct or not.

I understand your stance, have no problem with your call, we all enjoy this site and wouldn't want you closed down. But get your facts right.

And Pete mate for gods sake ignore anything Cyril (safeasmilk, sugarnspikes, tropical hotdog, avalon), writes in repost to my post, he has been banned by you lot three times previously for counter posting and inflaming.. You, Biltong and all the other mods as well, know he is just trying to stir up trouble.

nathan wrote:I do sometimes think coaches will spout out there digs without fully understanding another clubs finances, I can guess most are aiming at the tigers despite the amount of times its reported the tigers pay their players less than elsewhere.

I think most coaches would have to be idiots to target Tigers as it is well known that players will move there for less as they get a lot more out of being at the club eg International recognition and top quality rugby.

Can some other sides with big squads offer that though? I don't think so. What Tigers offer is pretty unique and it's taken them most of the pro era to build up that image, I can't see how other's could do it over night.

Johnston was offered 300k by a French club and even at Quins he was our best paid player (according to the Quins forum) before Nev re-signed. So let's assume that's more in the region of 150-200k that's still a lot of money on one player for a team that has a whole load of Internationals in it.

maestegmafia wrote:

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:maestegmafia - I have removed the poll for the time being as it could potentially be seen as libelous and is treading on dangerous ground with the wording. We cannot have people on here accusing clubs of financial wrongdoings and indeed I'm not sure how you expect people on here to know whether they are or not?

RDW

I don't have a problem with that but people's published private polling of opinion can in no way be libellous. It is a gauge of opinion not of debatable fact.

Of course it can, otherwise you could just publish any slurs you wanted and just write "in my opinion" at the bottom.

As an aside, over the past few months the admin team have had a couple of requests from lawyers on behalf of well known persons requesting that posts they regarded as libellous be removed. In both cases we got rid of the comments at a rapid rate of knots, and in one case the poster involved (not on the rugby section) served a lengthy ban - that poster actually asked us to double the ban we'd issued when he realised the seriousness of the offence taken by the person. In the modern world people do keep tabs on what's being said about them, and take action where googling leads straight to un-flattering stuff being said about them.

I am well aware that publicly limited clubs and companies contact forum websites over their content. but in this case you are far away from the mark. An opinion poll is not a measure of factual impression.

If, hypothetically, (and I am reasonably sure he does not) I say that Leicester tigers boss gives out free gold rolex watches to referees that would be liable as it frames one persons doing.

Conducting an opinion poll on whether or not people believe that the PRL are in fact knowing or incorrect in their statement that no club in the english premiership is outside the salary cap is not in any way liable whatsoever.... I offered a poll on whether an article published by the Guardian is likely correct or not.

I understand your stance, have no problem with your call, we all enjoy this site and wouldn't want you closed down. But get your facts right.

And Pete mate for gods sake ignore anything Cyril (safeasmilk, sugarnspikes, tropical hotdog, avalon), writes in repost to my post, he has been banned by you lot three times previously for counter posting and inflaming.. You, Biltong and all the other mods as well, know he is just trying to stir up trouble.

Your 'holier than thou' stance is getting a bit tiresome on here, especially considering your MO is to trawl through all the newspaper sites in an attempt to find anything defamatory about English rugby to post. In my opinion you are one of the most inflammatory posters on here so suggest you leave the mods to do their job.

As stated Teams have been fined cash for minor indiscretions.

An example of a minor indiscretion:

Academy players salaries do not count towards the cap - unless they go over £30k (correct amount 2 seasons ago)

Tigers pay basic salary, appearance fees and win bonuses. Now they can budget for the overall payments of apperance fees and win bonuses (though do you budget to reach a final?). If you are close to the cap you could get the situation where an academy player accrues enough match appearances to go over £30k and suddenly you have exceeded the cap. the alternative would be to stop playing the academy player. Such a situation occurred in the 2010/11 season when Manu was still an academy player but started 17 matches for us (with 10 on the bench as well). Very early in the season he exceeded his £30k allowance. I do not know if this pushed tigers over the cap, but if it had a cash fine would have been levied. The alternative is that tigers would have stopped picking him to avoid a points fine.

Irish Londoner wrote:I should imagine that no club actually breaks the salary cap, however I would not be suprised if some clubs were not actively looking for loopholes in it - a bit like the difference between tax evaision and tax aviodance.

That's what I'm inclined to think, if there is anything dodgy happening on that front.

There are also plenty of other benefits to playing for some teams over others that may make a player willing to take a lower pay playing for one club over another, e.g. chance to win tournaments, quality of training facilities (and knock on effect on chance to play international rugby), club culture/environment, opportunity to play Heineken Cup rugby, better exposure and likely improved personal sponsorship, etc. And then of course there are factors relating to the area the club plays and trains, is it a home team that a player supports, local living costs, quality of schools (for those that have kids), benefit to family (e.g. work for partner).

You get the idea...

That is a good point LT.

Wasps must have had a simmilar situation due to all their injuries. They had alot of young players who would have been playing alot more then expected and be paid alot more. They easily could have been 100k over their expected wage bill.

Brendan wrote:That is a good point LT.

Wasps must have had a simmilar situation due to all their injuries. They had alot of young players who would have been playing alot more then expected and be paid alot more. They easily could have been 100k over their expected wage bill.

The cap includes long term injury dispensation.
Wasps as a team are unlikely to be spending up to the cap anyway

The big problem with all this speculation is that very few people actually know the rules well, and even less the details of them (which arent openly published anywhere)...or the details of whats gone on over the last few seasons when Wasps made open allegations regarding cap manipulation. As said in the statement its dealt with privately to avoid lurid headlines, and huge penalties to sate the baying public appetite for shock and horror.

Part of the argument boils down to what even constitutes breaking the cap, that hasnt changed since it was first introduced. The increase to the 4.5 million level was bought in in return for tightening up of the loopholes in non wage payments. But theres still always loopholes, some of which have been well documented here and elsewhere.

Pete C (Kiwireddevil) wrote:

Cyril on 606v2 wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:maestegmafia - I have removed the poll for the time being as it could potentially be seen as libelous and is treading on dangerous ground with the wording. We cannot have people on here accusing clubs of financial wrongdoings and indeed I'm not sure how you expect people on here to know whether they are or not?

RDW

I don't have a problem with that but people's published private polling of opinion can in no way be libellous. It is a gauge of opinion not of debatable fact.

Of course it can, otherwise you could just publish any slurs you wanted and just write "in my opinion" at the bottom.

As an aside, over the past few months the admin team have had a couple of requests from lawyers on behalf of well known persons requesting that posts they regarded as libellous be removed. In both cases we got rid of the comments at a rapid rate of knots, and in one case the poster involved (not on the rugby section) served a lengthy ban - that poster actually asked us to double the ban we'd issued when he realised the seriousness of the offence taken by the person. In the modern world people do keep tabs on what's being said about them, and take action where googling leads straight to un-flattering stuff being said about them.

So I had better hold that poll "Should JW come out before he retires" back then?

yappysnap wrote:
Johnston was offered 300k by a French club and even at Quins he was our best paid player (according to the Quins forum) before Nev re-signed. So let's assume that's more in the region of 150-200k that's still a lot of money on one player for a team that has a whole load of Internationals in it.

Most of our "internationals" were with the club long before they became internationals, Wiggy and Hodgeson were at best fringe players in the England set up, so would not be on such a high wage that everyone is assuming that they are on. At the moment everyone is guessing on French pay and screaming cheats, just as the finger has been pointed at Tigers in the past and Bath/Glos etc..... basicly anyclub that buy's one of your best players or a player you wanted at your club

Billy VP has released this statement on his move to Saracens

(via Tom Varndell)

http://twitter.yfrog.com/5t8orysuhoerrqhnxslidvovz

Dorian West has made his views known on this:


http://www.northampton-news-hp.co.uk/Sport/Northampton-Saints-RUFC/Rugby-Union-Salary-cap-concern-for-Northampton-Saints-coach-West-20130117103720.htm?

I can’t say because I don’t know all of the figures, but I know we spend £4.5million and we've got 35 senior players, and they’re all of a decent standard, Other clubs have got 50-odd players and they’re all of a decent standard, so try and work it out for yourself.

There is a salary cap in England and if you look at the group of players we have got, that’s what you get for £4.5 million.

You can look at some of the numbers in the other squads and the quality, and try and work out how much they’re actually spending because we are the benchmark.

That makes West, Brian Smith and Conor O'Shea all saying, or at least implying, that something is fishy.

Or maybe that Sarries are paying less than them, but are a more attrative club in terms of plans, player development/welfare?

Its not all about cold hard cash

And do you think Sarries would openly flaunt the cap by buying players that exceed it when the powers that be know how much they have?

In the professional era, it is mostly about cash though.

I'm not trying to offend, but I just can't see what attractions there are at Saracens to persuade players to take large salary deductions in order to play there. It's a club that has struggled with fan numbers/attendance and it doesn't have a long and prestigious history of winning silverware. Sarries, as an organisation, surely have their positives and negatives compared to other clubs, but I don't see that its enough to make them vastly more attractive to players. Dorian west says that Saints can only afford 35 premiership quality players under the cap, while sarries have 50. That's a 30% difference.

Flaunting it would be buying the sort of players that Toulon do, Sarries seem to be more careful than that. I think they can be confident that, as long as they're careful no-one will be able to prove anything.

mawhis wrote:In the professional era, it is mostly about cash though.

I'm not trying to offend, but I just can't see what attractions there are at Saracens to persuade players to take large salary deductions in order to play there. It's a club that has struggled with fan numbers/attendance and it doesn't have a long and prestigious history of winning silverware. Sarries, as an organisation, surely have their positives and negatives compared to other clubs, but I don't see that its enough to make them vastly more attractive to players. Dorian west says that Saints can only afford 35 premiership quality players under the cap, while sarries have 50. That's a 30% difference.

Flaunting it would be buying the sort of players that Toulon do, Sarries seem to be more careful than that. I think they can be confident that, as long as they're careful no-one will be able to prove anything.

It baffles most people, I can assure you.

mawhis wrote:In the professional era, it is mostly about cash though.

I'm not trying to offend, but I just can't see what attractions there are at Saracens to persuade players to take large salary deductions in order to play there. It's a club that has struggled with fan numbers/attendance and it doesn't have a long and prestigious history of winning silverware. Sarries, as an organisation, surely have their positives and negatives compared to other clubs, but I don't see that its enough to make them vastly more attractive to players. Dorian west says that Saints can only afford 35 premiership quality players under the cap, while sarries have 50. That's a 30% difference.

Flaunting it would be buying the sort of players that Toulon do, Sarries seem to be more careful than that. I think they can be confident that, as long as they're careful no-one will be able to prove anything.

Thats the thing some of our large squad are not premiership quality yet, the 50 man squad covers Aviva, HC and the LV, most on their are only playing LV and are dual reg with Bedford so are on a lot less wages.

Maybe if Northampton payed there players less and built some depth? 35 players and they have not used some at all and a few with only <5 games, not great player managment when your playing on three fronts and want silverware!

Jimpy i'll ignore the less that obvious dig (sound very much like the scousers in kissball who bang on and on about their history after not winning anything for years) but Sarries are building up the club very much in the model of the tigers as they have shown the way. Look after the players, play top flight HC rugby every year and people will want to play for you for less money. Take it as a compliment that were copying you

mawhis wrote:In the professional era, it is mostly about cash though.

I'm not trying to offend, but I just can't see what attractions there are at Saracens to persuade players to take large salary deductions in order to play there. It's a club that has struggled with fan numbers/attendance and it doesn't have a long and prestigious history of winning silverware. Sarries, as an organisation, surely have their positives and negatives compared to other clubs, but I don't see that its enough to make them vastly more attractive to players. Dorian west says that Saints can only afford 35 premiership quality players under the cap, while sarries have 50. That's a 30% difference.

Flaunting it would be buying the sort of players that Toulon do, Sarries seem to be more careful than that. I think they can be confident that, as long as they're careful no-one will be able to prove anything.

Saracens are on the pitch one of the top sides in England. They are not as exciting as Quins for example but just as effective. Against Quins more so. Winning silverware,prestige and shot at international glory is important to players. Saracens are getting a lot of international recognition. In Europe they are starting to make progress too.

One aspect that is underestimated is stability. Saracens have found stability - not many players come into the club and not many go out. Over the last 3 seasons they have kept in the top 4. They look set to stay there. For players they have that security of the club not suddenly going through a poor run like Wasps and even Gloucester did last season, Sale and London Irish this season.

Saracens' treatment of players is arguably one of the best in Europe. They look after them off the pitch and on it well. Examples of this are of course the away bonding trips like Munich and Miami.

The players get good rest periods because of rotation which means they aren't flogged too.

Why do you think most players sign extensions? It's because they are happy at the club.

A long and prestigious history of winning silverware is a big draw to players really? Sure perhaps with Leicester but that's because they are always in with a shot. Do you think Bath and Wasps history comes into question when they have been performing poorly in the past?

Personally I think players' care more about their club's current chance of silverware when looking to move.

Do you think Wasps last season was a desirable club to go to when almost getting relegated?

Struggled with fan numbers/attendances? I suppose it depends who you compare to - the Wembley games seem to fill up quite nicely.

If you said they struggle to fill Watford to that would be more accurate.

In my opinion the only club that is a bigger draw than Saracens currently in the AP is Leicester.

BS,

Do you know if the biscuits supplied at Chris Ashtons regular citing hearings come under the cap?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:BS,

Do you know if the biscuits supplied at Chris Ashtons regular citing hearings come under the cap?

No we just use the ones left from when Cockers has been in having a dressing down for complaining about refs

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:BS,

Do you know if the biscuits supplied at Chris Ashtons regular citing hearings come under the cap?

This is one of the strangest posts I have seen.

I would imagine the biscuits were removed as they weren't meant to be eaten anyway.

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/premiership/structure/index.php

Back in the real world, having a look at the above link, the section below caught my eye:

'The level of the base Salary Cap during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 Salary Cap years will be linked directly to annual central revenue distributions to the Clubs from Premiership Rugby. This is designed to promote the sustainable financial position of Aviva Premiership Rugby and its Clubs. Growth in salaries will be linked to growth in average revenues. This will provide a natural check on the financial capacity of the Clubs to spend on playing talent, and as the collective business of Aviva Premiership Rugby develops further, there will be equal opportunity for all Clubs.'


Does this therefore mean that the new deal with BT will mean another salary cap increase?

Bathman_in_London wrote:http://www.premiershiprugby.com/premiership/structure/index.php

Back in the real world, having a look at the above link, the section below caught my eye:

'The level of the base Salary Cap during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 Salary Cap years will be linked directly to annual central revenue distributions to the Clubs from Premiership Rugby. This is designed to promote the sustainable financial position of Aviva Premiership Rugby and its Clubs. Growth in salaries will be linked to growth in average revenues. This will provide a natural check on the financial capacity of the Clubs to spend on playing talent, and as the collective business of Aviva Premiership Rugby develops further, there will be equal opportunity for all Clubs.'


Does this therefore mean that the new deal with BT will mean another salary cap increase?

Yes. Basically the cap will be tied to the lump sum each team gets. Therefore, in theory, it's a level they can all achieve.

Unless I'm mistaken, it also means that a promoted team, who would get substantially less of the central distribution, is not allowed to spend as much as other clubs, even if they have a rich backer. Neat trick by Perfidious Rugby Ltd, and another step towards virtual ring-fencing.

No, I think it's one cap rather than individually based on what each individual club gets. Could be wrong

Most promoted teams don't spend the cap anyway, the non-HEC teams might not either. Wasps are having a good season without spending all they are allowed too. Realistically you only need to spend the full cap if you intend to compete in both the AP and HEC as the squad depth will be sorely tested.

Bathman_in_London wrote:http://www.premiershiprugby.com/premiership/structure/index.php

Back in the real world, having a look at the above link, the section below caught my eye:

'The level of the base Salary Cap during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 Salary Cap years will be linked directly to annual central revenue distributions to the Clubs from Premiership Rugby. This is designed to promote the sustainable financial position of Aviva Premiership Rugby and its Clubs. Growth in salaries will be linked to growth in average revenues. This will provide a natural check on the financial capacity of the Clubs to spend on playing talent, and as the collective business of Aviva Premiership Rugby develops further, there will be equal opportunity for all Clubs.'


Does this therefore mean that the new deal with BT will mean another salary cap increase?

Yeah thats a very sound system, the whole point of the cap is to try and ensure that clubs arent spending way beyond their income just to compete (Wasps)...so linking it to the central income makes a lot of sense. Its in clubs long term interests to avoid a situation where teams try and buy titles like in France. We want clubs to be sustainable businesses, which is one of the reasons why theres a lot of suspicion about whats going on at places like Sarries and Bath

Not sure about the HEC money, that comes from the RFU rather than being PR money, although it may be distributed via them. That whole deal is still a bit suspect anyway/