Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

by doctor_grey Fri 01 Mar 2013, 10:31 pm

Rumours that some clubs have exceeded the Salary Cap have been floated since the very first season with a cap. This season I have heard more rumours and seen more discussion at clubs and in the media. Now, Leon Barwell, the current chairman of Saints, has gone public with his concerns.

Having been associated with the club in various guises, from player to fan to occasional medical advise, for about twenty years, I have gotten to know the Barwells, at least a little. No different than the many, many Saints supporters who got to know Keith Barwell as he would always spend time with the fans, I know his passion for the city, the club, the fans and especially for doing things the right way. That includes ensuring the club has had the right structures to be self-supporting (which it is) and for transparency and ethics. Now that his son Leon is in charge, I don't think that passion for doing things right has changed. I admit to being surprised Leon has gone public and by coming close to naming teams which he feels are in violation. He mentioned the same thing at a club meeting earlier.

This is from an article on ESPN scrum, which I am sure some of you have already read:

"I think we are fairly clear in our minds that there are at least two teams in the Premiership that cheat on the wage cap and I'm not talking about a bit of tinkering around the edges, I'm talking about big time," "Our squad size is 35 and we don't overpay as a club our players. We are very careful in terms of how we spend the money. There are two clubs in the Premiership, one with a squad size of 51 and one with a squad size of 54. Now I don't believe they are at those clubs simply because something 'special' is happening, they are getting paid pretty well."

My questions to you are:
- whether you think it is a good idea for the chairman to make public statements like this
- whether you think he is right
- whether there might be more teams in violation
and
- whether you think the salary cap should be increased or abolished (it won't be reduced, so no need to discuss that)

I know the salary cap in the NFL is aggressively policed, as it is in most American sports. Is now the time for Rugby to adopt similar policies? It will cost something to do that.

If you haven't read the article: http://www.espnscrum.com/premiership-2012-13/rugby/story/177978.html

by formerly known as Sam Fri 01 Mar 2013, 10:43 pm

It's time a degree of transparency was enforced similar to the NFL. The fact is that only the PRL produced financial audit team know what's going on and the fines that have been given. No chairman can actually know what another team spends they can only make an educated guess.

by **LondonTiger** Fri 01 Mar 2013, 10:46 pm

The first thing to say is that Saints do not use the dual registration scheme - something Tigers, Quins and Sarries use quite a lot.

Anyone know how those salaries are counted?

At tigers we have 49 people in the first team squad but:

1 Player is long term injured and does not count to cap (Miles Benjamin)
3 players are academy players and do not count (Cain, Steele and Oliver)
1 player is now at London irish (Pat Phibbs)
4 players are at Nottingham (Bower, Harris, Symons, Lewington)

by Knackeredknees Fri 01 Mar 2013, 10:50 pm

As this is a very thinly attack on sarries, yes we have a big squad but a lot of them are still academy players of on there first year of senior contract so are not on mega bucks, neither are the current eng international players on the b if money having resigned before getting called up.

Sounds like he's deflecting attention on his own sides failings, saints have never had a big squad it's what cost them the HC, maybe they are overpaid compared to others?

And I'm sure sarries are prob the most scrutinized club in terms of salary cap.

by **LondonTiger** Fri 01 Mar 2013, 10:57 pm

According to the Sarries website I think they only had 39 players in their first team squad. It should be noted that this does not include a variety of players such as Spencer and Ransom who have been on loan in the lower divisions.

by Dubbelyew L Overate Fri 01 Mar 2013, 10:59 pm

I question whether this was a public statement, since I understand that it was made to season ticket-holders only. It may have been leaked. Other than that, it merely reaffirms suspicions that many have harboured.

As to his thoiughts on doing away with the cap, that's fine but only if viable competitions can be sustained with about 4 or 5 opponents.

by **LondonTiger** Fri 01 Mar 2013, 11:10 pm

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:As to his thoiughts on doing away with the cap, that's fine but only if viable competitions can be sustained with about 4 or 5 opponents.

Not sure we would have even that many. Bath and Sarries can afford to pay more than they are now.

Quins, Tigers and Saints all made losses over the last 3 years (tigers in part due to the way the the Cat stand was financed). Perhaps the Barwells and the private investors at Quins would pay more - but tigers certainly could not.

Glaws and Exeter made modest profits over the last two years so could spend more - but certainly Exeter probably could not finance exceeding the current cap.

Of course the BT Money could make a difference.

by B91212 Fri 01 Mar 2013, 11:47 pm

It's a risky thing to come out with as I, like just about anyone with more than a passing interest in the Premiership can very easily guess which clubs he is referring to.

In answer to the good doctor's questions -

whether you think it is a good idea for the chairman to make public statements like this
I would rather it wasn't the chairman of the club I support but yes I am glad that somebody in his position has gone public with it. Most rugby followers in England at least have concerns that this is the case and it's frustrating to think the authorities may just be turning a blind eye. The reputation of the prem being a fair and honest competition is being put at serious risk while this issue is not openly investigated.

whether you think he is right
I really don't know. It depends what the rules are and how teams are paying players in other ways than the standard wage. I've no doubt that teams are getting around it, whether they are managing to do this in a roundabout way that means that they are not actually officially breaking the rules as they stand I don't know. That is why I feel that a open investigation is more than warranted.

whether there might be more teams in violation
Honestly have no idea and feel all 12 teams should be thoroughly investigated. Does anybody outside the RFU and the teams themselves actually know the official rules when it comes to what does and doesn't count for the cap? Peoples (mis)conceptions can be pretty inaccurate at times.

whether you think the salary cap should be increased or abolished
I think it should be increased along with the rules becoming much more transparent. From what I understand a few teams don't go to the max anyway and they still tend to be competitive anyway and hopefully it would allow English teams to be a little more competitive in Europe by having more strength in depth in certain area's. However on the flip side my concern would be that certain teams would just sign up all the top players and end up with better second teams than some have first 15's. No disrespect to Leinster but I don't want my team to have what seems at times like two completely different first 15's that they put out depending on the competition / circumstances. Another concern with increasing would be that the same players currently employed will just want more wages and so we would slide every closer to wendyball where the players become a**hole primadona's with no grasp of reality, funded by the always gullible joe public.

I do want the prem to be competitive though and so am in support of a cap being in place (and a realistic one at that unless the French version!) I would just like it to be completely transparent and strictly enforced. Some teams will always have more resources to call upon and so will be able to go to the max whilst some others won't be able to, hopefully a cap encourages some teams not to spend above their means and risk bankruptcy.

I don't think it would particularly help my team if it was increased anyway as unless someone is willing to pump some of their own money into the Saints (and I'm happier that the club I follow is self sufficient) then my understanding is that although the books just about balance at the current level, until the Gardens are redeveloped to upgrade facilities and increase the capacity then they won't be able to generate much more revenue then they do currently (damn Northampton council won't let them sell part of the land to ASDA, but in fairness I'm torn on that because I'm generally against the decimation of the British high street).

That's all I have for now. Apologies if I've repeated what others have said but I have typed this whilst being at work and kept getting disturbed! At least it's nearly home time Smile

by formerly known as Sam Sat 02 Mar 2013, 8:09 am

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/premiership/structure/index.php#.UTGzieb1uFM

by Baggy42 Sat 02 Mar 2013, 8:34 am

Tiger,
Just a couple of things...
Saints DO make use of the dual registration process. There are 8 players at other clubs this weekend.

Also saints have made a profit for the last 12 years including our "tour" of the championship! (I really hope we don't get another one!)

Leicester made a profit last year also

Sarries on the other hand lost £5.6m. 89.5% of that was staff and running costs.

The concern I have over the salary cap being abolished is that some clubs will try to spend what they can't afford causing ticket prices to rocket and clubs to go out perhaps there is a case for a basic salary cap and then clubs who make a profit can use that extra?

Also I don't see a problem with a club director throwing a bit of a hand grenade about others not following the league rules, but you have to be 100% certain you are squeaky clean yourself and also be sure that your accusations are correct!

by Baggy42 Sat 02 Mar 2013, 8:37 am

By the way, I got those figures from ESPN

by HongKongCherry Sat 02 Mar 2013, 9:37 am

It's obviously quite clear that this is aimed at Sarries, but there has been no evidence found that they are above the cap. However, the notion that trips abroad, iPads, etc persuade players to join is hard to believe. The dual reg thing doesn't come into it as those players are still part of the cap. Purely as speculation, but I do wonder if there are guarantees of payment once careers have finished, which would fall outside of the cap and would be hard for anyone to turn down. But to reiterate there has been no evidence found to the contrary.

Whilst he is not our Chairman, Ryan Walkinshaw has gone on record with a similar statement and made it clear we will stay within the cap. I do find that slightly laced with double standards as there is no doubt Glaws were over the cap under the reign of Dean Ryan!

by **LondonTiger** Sat 02 Mar 2013, 10:26 am

HKC,

I am sure we exceeded the cap in the past as well. Perhaps we still do, but contract negotiations etc indicate we are doing our damndest to keep the wage bill low.

by doctor_grey Sat 02 Mar 2013, 10:29 am

HKC,
The point about possible non-Rugby compensation is a good one. Payments, jobs, etc. after the contract expires is a good question. Years ago, a common approach was unofficially subsidised housing. I would like to see transparent audits, if for no other reason to guarantee a level playing field and to see which teams are not paying up to the salary cap. Interesting from the NFL is teams are required to spend a minimum of 90% of the salary cap.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sat 02 Mar 2013, 10:35 am

The salary cap does not allow any of those kind of payments or other interests to be arranged by the clubs. The main accusation is that they are setting up commercial endorsements, appearances, and paid sponsor bum kissing through third party agents to make it look legit.
Its perfectly OK for James Haskell to advertise mens shooting gear if hes arranged that work, but not for that deal to come via the club as a sub to his wages or for him to be paid an inflated price in return for additional sponsorship.
The other way of doing it is to get them to do overpaid work for other companies owned by the club investors.

by **LondonTiger** Sat 02 Mar 2013, 10:37 am

doctor_grey wrote:HKC,
The point about possible non-Rugby compensation is a good one. Payments, jobs, etc. after the contract expires is a good question. Years ago, a common approach was unofficially subsidised housing. I would like to see transparent audits, if for no other reason to guarantee a level playing field and to see which teams are not paying up to the salary cap. Interesting from the NFL is teams are required to spend a minimum of 90% of the salary cap.

I would not need the whole process to be published for a variety of reasons. I do want the clubs who have been punished for flouting the rules to be named along with the punishment

That would be a sure fire way of reducing the number of teams in the Premiership as there are several who would not be in a position to spend that much.

by doctor_grey Sat 02 Mar 2013, 11:04 am

LT,
I should have clarified I was not suggesting that 90% is the right approach for the Premiership. Simply that is how the NFL ensure a more level playing field, and how they cull out weaker ownership.

But, some minimum would be the right thing in my opinion. Give a few years before it comes into force for teams to sort themselves financially. Might ensure a better competitive balance and a better financial underpinning of the competition.

by SecretFly Sat 02 Mar 2013, 11:09 am

So some of the big AP sides are using more money than they admit to doing????

Never!!!!???

Next someone will be telling us that beef ain't beef. Journalists - from one fantasy to another one......

by Metal Tiger Sat 02 Mar 2013, 12:09 pm

Someone mentioned earlier the sponsorship angle... I think this is a very valud point as manyplayers when considering a move (and they all have agents these days) will look at sponsership opportunities...

For example:

Joe Bloggs at Sale... not going to earn much there (no offence) and exposure to European Top Flight & potential England spots and the endorsements that follow will be minimal.

Joe Bloggs at Tigers, Sarries or Quins... They would probably take a much smaller wage because they KNOW they are going to get all of the opportunities mentioned above.

And personal sponsorship is outside the cap. Ergo a players earning potential, even on a smaller wage, is going to be far higher at the top end of the table.

It also helps if you have a foreign union subsidising some of your team.

by doctor_grey Sat 02 Mar 2013, 2:30 pm

Metal Tiger,
Good Points. But the key is the endorsements and sponsorship cannot be part of any negotiation with a club. Probably hard to police, but a player cannot be guaranteed endorsement deals to join a club.

by beshocked Sat 02 Mar 2013, 3:06 pm

Knackeredknees agreed.

Perhaps clubs like saints and London Irish should focus more on sorting out their own failings instead of pointing the finger at other clubs. Maybe some clubs are exceeding the salary cap but in an age with numerous competitions and matches on the go strength in depth is necessary.

If too much focus is put on this it could lead to irreparable damage to the AP . I think English rugby is in healthy shape - jeopardising this is foolish IMO.

by formerly known as Sam Sat 02 Mar 2013, 3:38 pm

The rules of the game are in there for good reason Beshocked. If Sarries are exceeding the salary cap and this is helping them to record the sizeable losses of recent seasons they should be punished and forced into line for their own good. Financial sustainability should be a target for all clubs. I think cleaning up the game off the field is an excellent thing for the image of the game.

by HongKongCherry Sat 02 Mar 2013, 7:45 pm

beshocked wrote:Knackeredknees agreed.

Perhaps clubs like saints and London Irish should focus more on sorting out their own failings instead of pointing the finger at other clubs. Maybe some clubs are exceeding the salary cap but in an age with numerous competitions and matches on the go strength in depth is necessary.

If too much focus is put on this it could lead to irreparable damage to the AP . I think English rugby is in healthy shape - jeopardising this is foolish IMO.

I think the greatest danger to the sport is the demand from clubs like your own and Bath to increase or even do away with the salary cap. This isn't a criticism of either club as both have financial backers who can more than cope with that burden. However, if the backers were to pull out you could be left in a world of trouble. As such I feel there needs to be an exceptionally strong focus on the cap as we should all be aiming for financial security. Saints should lauded for their financial achievements. They have recorded profit on numerous occasions, when they could have been flaunting the cap instead Personally, if Barwell makes such a comment I feel the rest of the league should take notice.

by doctor_grey Sun 03 Mar 2013, 1:52 pm

Perhaps when the BT deal comes into force and the clubs receive more money across the board, the cap can increase?

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun 03 Mar 2013, 2:14 pm

doctor_grey wrote: Interesting from the NFL is teams are required to spend a minimum of 90% of the salary cap.

That is because they run a franchise system. They dont want owners getting a franchise then underspeding but cashing in on the lucrative shared Tv and sponsorship money. Teams are required to try and be competitive, franchises are awarded on a basis of how much money and audience the team is likely to generate for the collective...rather than on a promotion relegation basis. At the moment the trapdoor in the Jeff has a similar effect... teams that arent spending competitively run a strong risk of being booted out.

A rule like that would be of more relevance in a competition like the S15, although complicated by variation in average wage (for players of equal quality) across the nations in it.

by TJ1 Sun 03 Mar 2013, 3:30 pm

I believe financial security is essential. some clubs run deficits paid for by rich men. If there was no salary cap then these rich man could simply increase their spending, buy up all the best players and win everything. Other clubs would then have to ether find a benefactor, run at huge unsustainable losses or settle for second best.

by Hood83 Sun 03 Mar 2013, 4:10 pm

HongKongCherry wrote:
beshocked wrote:Knackeredknees agreed.

Perhaps clubs like saints and London Irish should focus more on sorting out their own failings instead of pointing the finger at other clubs. Maybe some clubs are exceeding the salary cap but in an age with numerous competitions and matches on the go strength in depth is necessary.

If too much focus is put on this it could lead to irreparable damage to the AP . I think English rugby is in healthy shape - jeopardising this is foolish IMO.

I think the greatest danger to the sport is the demand from clubs like your own and Bath to increase or even do away with the salary cap. This isn't a criticism of either club as both have financial backers who can more than cope with that burden. However, if the backers were to pull out you could be left in a world of trouble. As such I feel there needs to be an exceptionally strong focus on the cap as we should all be aiming for financial security. Saints should lauded for their financial achievements. They have recorded profit on numerous occasions, when they could have been flaunting the cap instead Personally, if Barwell makes such a comment I feel the rest of the league should take notice.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun 03 Mar 2013, 6:20 pm

Largely agree with that sentiment, the last thing we'd want to do is end up with a well financed flourishing league like the French thats the envy of the world...hang on Headscratch

There is always a dilemma here. Ive traditionally been a staunch supporter of the cap and its levelling effects in both ensuring some level of equality and tight competitiveness as well as limiting the spiralling costs of running a team at any level. However it could be damaging to the league, and the benefits a strong elite club system brings to the rest of the RFU, to drive off those willing to invest money; used to retain top players, invest in stadia and provide the best facilities.
The flip of that is that many good investors would want a stable market with a pretty much guaranteed income and controlled costs, like they have in most american sports under a franchise system that controls spending and ensures clubs are run prudently.
I think most of us would be disappointed to see the Jeff go the way of Premier League soccer and indeed the T14 which is a huge money pit with murky finances, dubious deals and a complete inability to promote professionalism amongst its players.
Unlike some Im not automatically horrified by the idea of "rich men" owning clubs (or being the prime source of income). The chap that owns Exeter has shown that this can be done in a way that creates a (fairly) successful club with a self sustaining business.
So should we hate Sarries for their model? Well they have taken a club that was on its knees and sorted it out on the field, got it a new stadium, and made it a serious brand. The next step is to increase their genuine regular fanbase, and bring more and more people and revenue into the game. All clubs benefit from that. They so certainly dont seem to be on a short termist smash and grab raid, even if there are some murky aspects to the way they do business.
There needs to be a way forward for the long term that seeks avoid the extremes of either; a league that dies on its arse and players quitting for Japan or The Jeff Premier League funded by Russian arms dealers and Harry Redknap inc.
I find myself seeing more in an RFU controlled franchise system where teams are admitted based on their ability to provide the best product. This would include considerations to history, ownership, finance (amount and sustainability), and willingness to invest. It would include a requirement to continue to run RFU academies. Central funding boosted for teams employing EPS players are producing players for various elite teams from their academies. A draft system like they have in american franchise sports is not realistic here. The league also must strive to be more than a development ground for England, I love it because its meaningful and competitive.
It sounds great on paper to me because i assume Im right about most things. I can pretty much guarantee there wont be a major change along these lines though in the medium term, too much politics. Id also be cautious having seen the mixed results of the Celtic superclubs and SXV franchises in really developing financially independent high level pro club rugby.

So in summary there is no right answer. But yeah Sarries and Bath appear to be cap busting, we knew this 3 years ago when Wasps made the same accusations.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Sun 03 Mar 2013, 6:41 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Largely agree with that sentiment, the last thing we'd want to do is end up with a well financed flourishing league like the French thats the envy of the world...hang on

There is always a dilemma here. Ive traditionally been a staunch supporter of the cap and its levelling effects in both ensuring some level of equality and tight competitiveness as well as limiting the spiralling costs of running a team at any level. However it could be damaging to the league, and the benefits a strong elite club system brings to the rest of the RFU, to drive off those willing to invest money; used to retain top players, invest in stadia and provide the best facilities.
The flip of that is that many good investors would want a stable market with a pretty much guaranteed income and controlled costs, like they have in most american sports under a franchise system that controls spending and ensures clubs are run prudently.
I think most of us would be disappointed to see the Jeff go the way of Premier League soccer and indeed the T14 which is a huge money pit with murky finances, dubious deals and a complete inability to promote professionalism amongst its players.
Unlike some Im not automatically horrified by the idea of "rich men" owning clubs (or being the prime source of income). The chap that owns Exeter has shown that this can be done in a way that creates a (fairly) successful club with a self sustaining business.
So should we hate Sarries for their model? Well they have taken a club that was on its knees and sorted it out on the field, got it a new stadium, and made it a serious brand. The next step is to increase their genuine regular fanbase, and bring more and more people and revenue into the game. All clubs benefit from that. They so certainly dont seem to be on a short termist smash and grab raid, even if there are some murky aspects to the way they do business.
There needs to be a way forward for the long term that seeks avoid the extremes of either; a league that dies on its arse and players quitting for Japan or The Jeff Premier League funded by Russian arms dealers and Harry Redknap inc.
I find myself seeing more in an RFU controlled franchise system where teams are admitted based on their ability to provide the best product. This would include considerations to history, ownership, finance (amount and sustainability), and willingness to invest. It would include a requirement to continue to run RFU academies. Central funding boosted for teams employing EPS players are producing players for various elite teams from their academies. A draft system like they have in american franchise sports is not realistic here. The league also must strive to be more than a development ground for England, I love it because its meaningful and competitive.
It sounds great on paper to me because i assume Im right about most things. I can pretty much guarantee there wont be a major change along these lines though in the medium term, too much politics. Id also be cautious having seen the mixed results of the Celtic superclubs and SXV franchises in really developing financially independent high level pro club rugby.

So in summary there is no right answer. But yeah Sarries and Bath appear to be cap busting, we knew this 3 years ago when Wasps made the same accusations.

Erm... Exeter is owned by 700 odd members

Chief

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun 03 Mar 2013, 6:47 pm

Apologies, bankrolls.

by Hood83 Sun 03 Mar 2013, 7:02 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Largely agree with that sentiment, the last thing we'd want to do is end up with a well financed flourishing league like the French thats the envy of the world...hang on

There is always a dilemma here. Ive traditionally been a staunch supporter of the cap and its levelling effects in both ensuring some level of equality and tight competitiveness as well as limiting the spiralling costs of running a team at any level. However it could be damaging to the league, and the benefits a strong elite club system brings to the rest of the RFU, to drive off those willing to invest money; used to retain top players, invest in stadia and provide the best facilities.
The flip of that is that many good investors would want a stable market with a pretty much guaranteed income and controlled costs, like they have in most american sports under a franchise system that controls spending and ensures clubs are run prudently.
I think most of us would be disappointed to see the Jeff go the way of Premier League soccer and indeed the T14 which is a huge money pit with murky finances, dubious deals and a complete inability to promote professionalism amongst its players.
Unlike some Im not automatically horrified by the idea of "rich men" owning clubs (or being the prime source of income). The chap that owns Exeter has shown that this can be done in a way that creates a (fairly) successful club with a self sustaining business.
So should we hate Sarries for their model? Well they have taken a club that was on its knees and sorted it out on the field, got it a new stadium, and made it a serious brand. The next step is to increase their genuine regular fanbase, and bring more and more people and revenue into the game. All clubs benefit from that. They so certainly dont seem to be on a short termist smash and grab raid, even if there are some murky aspects to the way they do business.
There needs to be a way forward for the long term that seeks avoid the extremes of either; a league that dies on its arse and players quitting for Japan or The Jeff Premier League funded by Russian arms dealers and Harry Redknap inc.
I find myself seeing more in an RFU controlled franchise system where teams are admitted based on their ability to provide the best product. This would include considerations to history, ownership, finance (amount and sustainability), and willingness to invest. It would include a requirement to continue to run RFU academies. Central funding boosted for teams employing EPS players are producing players for various elite teams from their academies. A draft system like they have in american franchise sports is not realistic here. The league also must strive to be more than a development ground for England, I love it because its meaningful and competitive.
It sounds great on paper to me because i assume Im right about most things. I can pretty much guarantee there wont be a major change along these lines though in the medium term, too much politics. Id also be cautious having seen the mixed results of the Celtic superclubs and SXV franchises in really developing financially independent high level pro club rugby.

So in summary there is no right answer. But yeah Sarries and Bath appear to be cap busting, we knew this 3 years ago when Wasps made the same accusations.

So in summary... Headscratch

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Sun 03 Mar 2013, 7:14 pm

Hood83 wrote:
Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:...hang on ......

So in summary there is no right answer.

So in summary...

Yes thats what I said except in the wrong order. I guess your way was a lot more succinct.

by AsLongAsBut100ofUs Sun 03 Mar 2013, 7:16 pm

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:Apologies, bankrolls.

Again, inaccurate

Chief

by beshocked Mon 04 Mar 2013, 9:49 am

Good post PSW.

I am not in favour of lifting the salary cap. I don't want to see salaries spiralling out of control like the Premier League but I want to see the AP sides being able to keep hold onto their players.

Competitiveness is one of the key aspects in my opinion. Need to get a balance between competitiveness in the AP but also in the HC and internationally.

Biggest problem for clubs is when their reputations of their players rise they can command higher salaries. This makes holding onto players very difficult.

by **LondonTiger** Mon 04 Mar 2013, 10:03 am

beshocked wrote:Biggest problem for clubs is when their reputations of their players rise they can command higher salaries. This makes holding onto players very difficult.

Something Quins have started to discover. Quins on the up, James Johnston's reputation rises. Player in demand. Saints in decline, PDJ reputation falling even quicker, player qvqilqble on the cheap.

Quins lose JJ as cannot afford and replace with PDJ whom they can.

by Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler Mon 04 Mar 2013, 10:10 am

OT but

it sounds like the PDJ move is more due to his girlfriend being difficult than wage considerations

by Bathman_in_London Mon 04 Mar 2013, 10:27 am

There is a lot of murkyness regarding salaries and the cap. I think he whole process should be more open. Not so the whole world knows exactly how much Toby Flood etc gets paid, but so the RFU/PRL name and shame even minor cap lapses.

I think breaking the cap has been going on for years. Anone remember the year when the majority of the clubs (not Bath, Bristol or Leeds from memory)voted to increase the cap from 2.5m to 4? As there wasn't a huge influx of players after that its probably fair to say the cap was being broken.

Since then I'm sure things have tighten up, but I can't believe that a trip to oktoberfest or an ipad would have as much sway as cash, or at least greater opportunities to make some, which is where the murkyness comes in.

Also if Bath are breaking the cap, I hope we would be fined, and I also hope whoever is in charge of signing players/ the finances is given a right b0llocking. If you are going to cheat, you at least want to win! I would think that our squad isnt good enough to be over the cap though, unless some average players are on huge salaries.

by Sponsored content

Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?

Re: Clubs Exceeding the Salary Cap in the Premiership?