The English salary cap - Premiership report due on Wednesday, 4 February

First topic message reminder :

Simmering silently on the back burner have been reports from 20 December last year ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/11305609/Saracens-and-Bath-under-investigation-for-alleged-salary-cap-breach.html , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2881625/Clubs-face-salary-cap-probe-Report.html).

Saracens and Bath each face fines of up to £10/£1* cap overspend plus (I believe) a points deduction.
*£4/£1 if only for one season.

A useful primer on sports caps in general and an overview of the English Premiership cap is at http://www.lawinsport.com/features/item/the-salary-cap-in-rugby-union

Personally, I hope that the book, the shelves then followed brick by brick, the whole effin' library is thrown at Wray and Craig should they have be caught fiddling the rules.

Not that the rules are in themselves necessarily legal...

justified sinner wrote:Tick, tick, tick.

I can't wait.  I think I am looking forward to this report more than the 6 Nations. This may change on Wednesday.

When is it due?

I bet there's a few chairmen who didn't sleep well last night...or knowing the RFU they slept perfectly soundly knowing that it would all be glossed over and it's slaps on the wrist at most.

Shouldn't be anything to do with RFU - salary cap is PRL policy administered by PRL and presumably already rubberstamped by RFU through the Professional Game Board.

If a dispute arises, PRL will no doubt dump the problem on RFU via PGB, as they did with London Welsh and the Minimum Standards Criteria, but until then it's the majority of other Chairmen that the few have to worry about.

Allegedly



Speaking of London Welsh, I think they may be having a serious pop at the divvy-up at the PRL Board meeting - could be some back-scratchy type voting between the 2 issues.

Not going to make excuses for Saracens - if they are breaking the cap they deserve punishment.


Won't be against consistency though - no one has been punished for allegedly breaking the cap in the past despite there probably being clubs over the cap for some time.

Quins got very light punishment for Bloodgate indeed.


People will crow and gloat if Saracens and Bath are punished but some clubs should thank their lucky stars that they haven't been punished in the past or in some cases just been given a light slap on the wrist.

beshocked wrote:Won't be against consistency though - no one has been punished for allegedly breaking the cap in the past despite there probably being clubs over the cap for some time.

Not actually true. Several clubs were given punishments, but the only ones in place before 2013/14 season were fines. Confidentiality agreements in place (similar to USGA) meant they were not publicised - but it was the repeated occurrence that meant they toughened up the sanctions.


Leicester have been fined twice I believe. Both low end and the second was in Manu's first season in the 1st team. Because of win bonuses - his salary exceeded the Academy cap and meant that he suddenly counted against the Main cap, not the academy one. Overall we wer under the two combined, but over on the main and under on the academy one.

Londontiger fair enough -those are light slap on the wrists though.

There will be issues whatever appears in the reports.

Interesting to see whether Saracens and Bath will be punished heavily if found guilty or if it will be brushed under the carpet (like it has in the past).

If it is the former then it is inconsistent but what many will want to see it because people like to see a kicking. If it is the latter then it will be accused of being the same old boys club (which most clubs in the AP are part of).

Depends on the level of overspend. If it's ala the Manu case an overspend due to injury dispensation or academy break through miscalculations then a slap on the wrist is fine. If it's systematic breaking of rules that's a different ball park. Given how Tigers like to spend up to the limit and max out the injury dispensation spend I'm not surprised we have picked up a fine. I doubt we'd knowingly overspend but I can see us trying to be too clever for our own good.

LT a previous conversation with a member of the Tigers board indicated that they scrapped bonus elements to contracts as it was a sticking point in negotiations and hard to predict for the cap. There's only been one player in recent years who was the exception. Or so I was told.

My understanding was that appearance bonuses (which is what I meant, blame my old brain) were still in place for the 2010/11 season.

PS - why are people expecting some announcement today?

I'm expecting Gats to announce utter contempt for Lancaster's 'weak and fragile' methodology in a spitting, vicious run-in with a Times journalist in about 2 hours and ten minutes.............
I don't know what the rest of you are expecting. That's up to yourselves

Everyone seems to be expecting some announcement about a salary cap investigation today, but only thing I can find is that the PRL are meeting to discuss Sarries request to change/abolish the cap.

There's a PRL Board meeting today.

LondonTiger wrote:Everyone seems to be expecting some announcement about a salary cap investigation today, but only thing I can find is that the PRL are meeting to discuss Sarries request to change/abolish the cap.

PRL stakeholder meeting is today, not sure where the investigation information has come from. You would imagine that any cap increase conversation would be over in about 2 minutes but Welsh threatening to sue again may need more time.

Will a blunt 'NO' to Sarries on the Cap mean 'No' though..............?

That's the trouble with negotiations today, you just never can believe a 'Yes' or a 'No' when you hear one anymore.  

'No' might mean:  "Thanks for bringing up the subject - again...! - we'll take it under advisement and just make another request in two weeks, you never know where we might stand then.  Keep up the good lobby work, thanks for coming"

I think the PRL Board don't meet very often, maybe twice or thrice a year? So probably a pretty full agenda, including salary cap, Welsh and standard of prawn sandwiches.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YIJQ1jgEI

doctor_grey wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YIJQ1jgEI

For what though? As far as I can see Prtnoy misread a Telegraph article and told us there would be results of a Salary cap investigation released, which got people excited. However that was never the case.

LondonTiger wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YIJQ1jgEI

For what though? As far as I can see Prtnoy misread a Telegraph article and told us there would be results of a Salary cap investigation released, which got people excited. However that was never the case.

You know, mate, I might be going bananas, but I would have sworn I read somewhere the report was going to be released today. Perhaps it was indeed from Portnoy, or maybe somewhere else. Can't recall anymore. But I was certainly expecting it was today. If not, any idea when the investigation would be complete?

I guess I am still waiting..........

what a let down if it's not today!

Was looking forward to reading that.

Agree, but going back to the two articles including in Portnoy's original post, as LT mentions, it does clearly state:  

The Telegraph, 20 December, 2014 wrote:Saracens had announced that they wanted to scrap the salary cap, which is supposed to rise to £5.5 million next season, when clubs will also be permitted two marquee players outside the cap.
However, no club has yet publicly backed Saracens’ stance, despite claims that seven clubs support them. But it is understood that a number of clubs are interested in changing how the salary cap works.
The matter will be discussed by Premiership stakeholders on Feb  4, but any changes to the salary cap would require a 75 per cent majority.

I didn't get this before.  
I am disappointed, too.  Really wanted to see this adjuticated and finished.  Would clearly and publicly ensure all clubs are on equal footing and also show there is a real sense of transparency in the Premiership.  In other words, a better and more modern business model.

Well that was a massive anti-climax ....

I vote we blame portney, all those in favour say aaaaye

aaaaye

Mea culpa.

I took my sources from the Tory press and ergo I was an idiot.

The Morning Star is reporting nothing and nor the Socialist Worker so (apparently) the revolution is postponed.

Citizen 'Wolfie' Smith of the Tooting Popular Front is reported to be organising the storming of Twickenham Main Gates (8:05pm , Friday).

http://www.kgbclothing.co.uk/images/designCanvas/designCanvasChe.jpg

OK, we put Portnoy on the virtual rack since he raised our expectations.

However, the articles did clearly state they Premiership clubs would discuss the Salary Cap at their meeting on the 4th. I wonder how that went.

I find it funny that portnoy only appeared so he could gloat about the downfall of certain clubs but it's now him who has to apologise because he jumped the gun.

Portnoy next time you try and gloat make sure you've got all the facts right first.

doctor grey I expect there will be solidarity - self interest is at the heart of it. If you damage any established club you hurt the profitability of the AP as a whole.

Dragging Bath and Saracens over hot coals in 2015 RWC year - is it wise when bearing in mind the current representation in the England squad and the profile of the players in each team?

Sometimes it is better to not expose the flaws of a person or a company because where do you draw the line?

If you had the opportunity to damage/destroy the career of a player or club would you choose to do it?

Particularly if it's your own club would you?

Sometimes its best to turn a blind eye to 'crime'/wrongdoing/cheating/gaining advantage from deceptive means?

Hmmm........... it happens for sure but.................. not sure it's the kind of lesssons little kids should get taught at school, beshocked.
Let's be having less mobile morals from you now  
We know you're a Sarries fan but let's keep ship-shape on the 'law is the law' gig - afterall, you might need that attitude when arguing your points against the heathen Pro12 hordes into the future.

Secretfly It's not as straightforward as you make out. There is a moral gray area.


I agree but it happens also look at this scenario

There is a sporting hero that children look up to - is it good to shatter that myth?

Look at Tiger Woods - meant to be a family man who could do no wrong - we find out he's a sex addict.

Ryan Giggs - supposedly the good guy in football is found to have cheated with his brother's fiancee.

Has it really helped golf and football to humiliate these two players?

Football is as corrupt as it's ever been. Exposing one of the good guys as a fraud - not exactly another good thing is it?

Is golf the same without an in form Tiger?


Not saying it's the lesson that should be a taught but it happens but the reality is that the real world can be a harsh place.

Do we really want to see the warts and all? You have to ask yourself that. Once you open one can of worms where do you go from there?

beshocked wrote:Secretfly It's not as straightforward as you make out. There is a moral gray area.


I agree but it happens also look at this scenario

There is a sporting hero that children look up to - is it good to shatter that myth?

Look at Tiger Woods - meant to be a family man who could do no wrong - we find out he's a sex addict.

Ryan Giggs - supposedly the good guy in football is found to have cheated with his brother's fiancee.

Has it really helped golf and football to humiliate these two players?

Football is as corrupt as it's ever been. Exposing one of the good guys as a fraud - not exactly another good thing is it?

Is golf the same without an in form Tiger?


Not saying it's the lesson that should be a taught but it happens but the reality is that the real world can be a harsh place.

Do we really want to see the warts and all? You have to ask yourself that. Once you open one can of worms where do you go from there?

I've heard that argument and I don't have a lot of time for it beshocked.  There is also a guy who was bigger than any of the people you speak of - even Woods - the guy named Lance Armstrong, who had a virtual Religious Cult going on around him - and the Cult was based on an absolute sham.  

He gave money to Charity, he had his name on a Cancer Help business, he himself survived cancer, he made great speeches about the power of the mind to struggle against adversity...he sneered competitors, he told truth tellers that they were lying right to their faces, over and over, he insulted opponents, he tried to implicate everyone in his wrong doing by saying 'everyone' did it in his day (NO they didn't) and he accused women of being whores.

He did all this....................... and still up to (and after!) he was found guilty, he had his unwavering 'soldiers' around the world believing he should never have been exposed, believing he was too 'Great' a star to be so bluntly dragged down, believing 'he gave' more to the sport than he stole from it, believing he was still a saint who should actually be allowed to hold onto his drug-bought medals.

No, I have no time for the 'sweeping it under a carpet for the good of the kids watching' arguments.  I don't care about Woods' private life - it isn't any more seedy than a lot of normal people who have plenty of affairs behind closed private doors.  I don't care about Ryan Giggs.  My opinion on him (if I had one) wouldn't change when reading about his private relationship business.

But if a sports person or team blatantly tries to get an edge in a competition by breaking the rules of the competition then that becomes a specifically sporting issue - and it has implications for teams I'd support, and therefore it impacts winning and losing and - NO, I don't believe those issues should be glided over and let go for the sake of the kids watching who might lose a few 'heros' along the way.
If a competition or Grouping has a set of rules - then one or two sides in that competition or grouping shouldn't feel so casual about breaking those rules to gain an advantage.  Advantages are the difference between winning and losing, and the difference between hoisting a cup and going away as depressed runner-up.

Are you telling me that teams don't cheat? Rugby players do it all the time - whether it's squint feeds, not rolling away, knocking the ball out of the oppositions hand, the dark arts......etc.

The ultimate examples of cheating are praised like Maradona's hand ball and the hand of Back - I agree with neither but there was no punishment. Both players are beloved.

Luiz Suarez is the ultimate cheat in football yet it hasn't stopped him.

I am not condoning any of their action - far from it but cheating is unfortunately part of rugby so it's hard to stamp down on one area yet let others run rife.

Some sides get away with it, some don't. E.g. Wasps used to cheat with uncontested scrums.


I personally feel you are happy to put some people on hot coals yet let others get off scot free.

If Saracens are guilty of breaking the cap then yes the kitchen sink should be thrown at them but it would be highly naive to believe they the only ones who supposedly cheat.

If you hurt one big club it could have ramifications.

Quins got off very lightly from the bloodgate scandal....

Would you be so willing to see punishments if it was your own nation, players or clubs? I am not so sure.




Also for all we know the likes of Bradley Wiggins and Usain Bolt might be cheaters but we don't know do we? They might just be better at it than Armstrong.

Suarez was a disciplinary matter, you can only compare that to gouging or the like in rugby.

I would compare the breaking of the salary cap to the new Financial Fair Play rules in Champions league football, Man City and PSG were found to be in breach of the rules, and paid something like a £50m fine and have had their squad numbers reduced for the competition this season, and are facing much stronger scrutiny on their transfers.

Barcelona broke transfer rules while signing Neymar, and now are banned from signing players for two years.

Those are three of the biggest clubs in European football, arguably the best in each of the three countries, and if UEFA had no problem slapping them with sanctions, rugby should be not be scared of doing the same

beshocked wrote:Would you be so willing to see punishments if it was your own nation, players or clubs? I am not so sure.




Also for all we know the likes of Bradley Wiggins and Usain Bolt might be cheaters but we don't know do we? They might just be better at it than Armstrong.

The mind boggles at how you approach this topic beshocked.

I won't name a team because this is about principle - so I'll say this clearly and distinctly.  TEAM A (in whatever nation) should not be allowed put themselves in a position of winning, and beating TEAM B, by virtue of the fact that they decide to cheat on the rules they've signed up to.  They shouldn't have their transgression (if provable) overlooked, underplayed or brushed under the carpet for the good of 'all'.

That's as clear as I can print it.  I don't care how big a following they have, how good at marketing the game they are, how much it will upset their fans if they're found guilty.  I don't care.  IF its provable that they did wrong then the organisation in charge of the laws should hold them accountable.

NOW............... to add to it again for clarity...................... no law prevents a team from TRYING to cheat and no law can STOP cheating if the transgression isn't exposed.  So, I agree - cheating happens.  What we're talking about here is PUNISHMENT if the cheating is exposed.

If it was found tomorrow that Brian O'Driscoll had taken PEDs for most of his professional career - the man would be dead in my eyes as a sporting idol.  Dead.  I would detest the lie in him that pretended what he did his whole career was all skill and hard honest training and nothing more.

Can I be clearer - I don't like cheats who try to get an illegal advantage in the winning game.  Winning is hard enough without those people or teams complicating the terrain.

On the subject of Bradley Wiggins and Usain Bolt.  Well................... you're the one who brought them up.

I'll say this only.................  Usain Bolt has that weird Cult revolving around him too and I don't warm to it - the 'soldiers'.  I wouldn't be a personal fan of his if that helps you out on that one.

Bambam can only compare it to gouging? Cheating is cheating.

Just a disciplinary matter? - Suarez successfully cheated to help Uruguay reach a world cup semi.

Maradona successfully cheated to help Argentina win a world cup.

Back successfuly aided Leicester in winning the HC by cheating.

These had important ramifications.

At least Armstrong got punished, Maradona is praised for his cheating, same with Back.

Comparing the salary cap in football to rugby is like chalk and cheese.

It's incredibly hypocritical for certain clubs to point the finger.

beshocked wrote:At least Armstrong got punished, Maradona is praised for his cheating, same with Back.

Same as Thierry Henry... the basteraud!

Oh I was thinking of Suarez's biting rather than the handball in the world cup, my apologies

Its not even a salary cap that FFP is trying, its just forcing you to live within your means, which is ultimately what the salary cap does by forcing everyone to play at a level playing field

Yes secretfly. Was that not important to you Irish?

What I am saying about the likes of Bolt and Wiggins is I hope they are not cheats but we don't know for sure.

It's a bit like when someone on these forums talked about SA players taking steroids etc.

Where does one draw the line?

Quins failed in their bid to cheat vs Leinster yet got a relatively light punishment.


Is breaking the salary cap seen as the number one sin in rugby? Even when the cap isn't actually that big?

beshocked wrote:Yes secretfly. Was that not important to you Irish?

What I am saying about the likes of Bolt and Wiggins is I hope they are not cheats but we don't know for sure.

It's a bit like when someone on these forums talked about SA players taking steroids etc.

Where does one draw the line?

Quins failed in their bid to cheat vs Leinster yet got a relatively light punishment.


Is breaking the salary cap seen as the number one sin in rugby? Even when the cap isn't actually that big?

You draw the line by people not adopting a culture of 'closed mouths' if they know their team-mates, bosses, coaches, owners are engaging in, promoting or encouraging the breaking of rules.  

You can't Prove cheating until you have evidence - but the lack of evidence doesn't prove there is no cheating (some people in rugby circles recently have been saying things that tend to go down that avenue:  if there is no evidence then nobody should accuse.)

It's like saying a murder suspect shouldn't be arrested because there is never enough evidence in on the actual day they get arrested.  First the accusation then the evidence collecting - if any.

Anyway, Henry cheated us out of a probable place at the WC.  Now, we're a crap side no doubt - and France were a better marketting side to have at a business controlled Football World Cup.  But the principle is that a French player blatantly cheated against us - in full daylight - to get to the money and glory generating WC.

It was wrong - criminally wrong - not that he cheated but that the FIFA and sneering Blatter chose to highlight the real deal in laughing at the idea that a little nondescript football playing nation would have the temerity to look for the result to changed.  The sneer was that cheating happens, France were smarter, the money and audience is with France, the business opportunities are with France and FIFA were always going to side with France because that's the team of stars they wanted at the WC.

Criminally wrong decision - but we live with it.  But that was a clear 'brushing it under the carpet for the benefit of the kids of the world who want to see some of their French heros playing'.  
Now if that's the future of rugby - that certain bigger sides with more marketing potential can get blind eyes from administrators to 'infringements' then................. that's where rugby will go.

secretfly

Yes but where do you draw the line?

Depends what you mean by rules. Creative accounting for example is not breaking the rules.

Certain teams could be getting past the cap in perfectly legal ways and loop holes.

It smacks of hypocrisy when the guilty accuse someone of wrongdoing.

E.g. if Neil Back or Maradona accused others of cheating. You would have to buy them a mirror!

There's a big difference between Neil Back level of cheating and salary cap infringements

Neil Back was an individual who chose to cheat for his team to have the chance of winning the game in the heat of the moment, no worse than Richie McCaw lying over the ball at a ruck preventing it from coming out quickly. If the ref had seen it, whats the worst that would happen, a yellow card?

Salary cap infringement is a cold hearted business decision made by an organisation, from the top down that has to be decided by the owner, the board, the head coach, director of rugby whatever

That's why its far worse than Neil Back or Maradona for me, and I'm not saying it because its Sarries, I have no club affiliation at all other than watching good rugby

Bambam we'll have to agree to disagree.

You don't think Dean Richards would have praised Neil Back's antics?


Are you seriously telling me that clubs wouldn't want to find loop holes in the salary cap if they can?

Bloodgate was decision made from the top down.

Just a light slap on the wrist.

Dean Richards is back and his return to coaching isn't questioned at all.

Cheating by a player, official or ball-boy during a game is one thing.

Deliberately (in effect) defrauding their opponents by is another.

'shocked wrote:    Reply with quote


Portnoy next time you try and gloat make sure you've got all the facts right first.

FU. Not gloating. Not bleating. Not anything.

I was on here criticising the Tigers when they were cheating the cap.

But I strongly suspect that Nige has been pumped by Bruce.

And I hope that both of them will have a ready supply of cortisone to salve their ragged arses.

beshocked, whilst I get you trying to defend your club, attempting to do so by comparing on field transgretions in individiual matches to systematically flouting the rules of a competition is simply not comparing like for like.

Firstly, if a player is caught by the officials commiting fould play, it is not 'swept under the carpet for the good of thegame' just because he's a top player, he is punished, penalty, yellow card, red card, citing, ban, whatever.

Similarly, if any club is found guilty of breaking the rules of the competition they should be hit with whatever the agreed appropriate sanctions is. I seem to recall London Wlesh being docked points because a club official falsified paperwork in order that they could play an overseas player as EQP. I don't recall you asking then for it to be swept under the carpet for the good of the children, and in my eyes, breaches of the salary cap, if found to be true, are far worse than what Welsh did.

I think there was a delay in his British Passport or visa which meant he faked a birth certificate. Sale went on a resurgence when Diamond took over again but the points deduction took the wind out of Welsh's sails and potentially had a big impact on the end of the season.

Portnoy's complaint it seems to me you are just quibbling over what is the bigger crime.

Cheating is still cheating regardless whether it's on the field or not. Throw the book at Saracens and Bath by all means if they are guilty but there will be consequences.

Nige has been pumped by Bruce -? What? You continually throw sneers the way of Nigel and Bruce when you know nothing of the men themselves.

Nigel doesn't use a keyboard to hide himself - he's a rugby fan, he goes to the games and supports his team wholeheartedly. I am sure Bruce does the same.


Ozzy3213


are you seriously telling me that some bans are not conveniently made lighter to suit the situation? E.g. Manu Tuilagi,Mark Cueto and George Kruis... All conveniently arriving back for England just in time...

I am not saying sweep it under the carpet - I am just saying that if you don't then you will cause a lot of damage - particularly in RWC year. Think of the consequences.

I am sure the appropriate authorities in England will take the measures they see fit.

With all due respect London Welsh aren't Saracens or Bath. London Welsh are seen as a lesser club, they are treated as such, whether you agree with their treatment or not.

If London Welsh are demoted or punished it doesn't rock the boat as it were. Also London Welsh do not help themselves by playing the victim card again and again.

Punish Bath and Saracens by all means but don't cry when things don't quite pan out as you want.

Dean Richards is a serial cheater yet he's been welcomed back to the AP with open arms. Quins cheated during Bloodgate - that barely gets mentioned again.

Will Saracens or Bath be treated with similar leniency? I doubt it!

To be honest I think the cap is focussed on too much by fans - instead of looking at their own faults and flaws they blame the supposed advantage certain clubs have for their own failings.

beshocked wrote:
Dean Richards is a serial cheater yet he's been welcomed back to the AP with open arms. Quins cheated during Bloodgate - that barely gets mentioned again.

Barely gets mentioned???????????

It's practically the longest running gag in rugby circles.  It's forever getting an outing.

But back to the facts.  If you give yourself more money to pay for better players then you're better off than the lowly club that you believe should be blaming themselves.  

Your arguments keep infering that BIG sides, with plenty of support and BIG marketing potential should always get the rub of the green when caught cheating...but smaller clubs should realise their lowly position of insignificance and be prepared to be blown out of the proverbial water by the lawbook - because after all, they're bringing it on themselves by moaning too much.

You keep letting us know that you believe POPULAR/large supporter volume sides should always be at the top and winning even if that entails cheating, whilst teams with less POPULAR support should be forced to abide by all laws in full, without equivocation.

beshocked wrote:To be honest I think the cap is focussed on too much by fans - instead of looking at their own faults and flaws they blame the supposed advantage certain clubs have for their own failings.

I'm sorry Beshocked but I have to query this one - so basically the increasing financial disparity between the "smaller clubs" and the "big" clubs is a minor issue and that if only they concentrated on their problems and failings rather than questioning the misdemeanours of their betters then all would be well in the world?

And buy the way to compare the "size" of a club to it's "importance" is a very slipperly slope for a Sarries fan to stand on, there are clubs with greater or at least equally large "importance" in the history of the game - Rosslyn Park, Blackheath, Richmond to name three in the London area alone - given that everything they've done since professionalism day one has been as the plaything of investors - to paraphrase Danny Baker about Chelsea, "Saracens aren't a big rugby team , they're a middle sized team that won the lottery".

I know Sarcens do lots of good work at the lower levels, great community programmes, opening up Allianz for public use and so on, but a major breach of the salary cap in the era when it's the only thing that keeps the professional game sustainable at current levels should be jumped on heavily and the teams involved given exemplary punishment, whether they are "big" or "small".

secretfly no I am not saying that. I am saying that if you are poorly run then you should do something about it - don't look for a scapegoat or an excuse. Far too often we as people like to blame someone else instead of looking closer to home. Many fans like to use the salary cap as an excuse.

I am not saying that big sides should get the rub of the green, I am saying that I understand why they do. Also if you do punish the "big" sides then accept the consequences.

Irish Londoner the disparity is surely exaggerated. It could be far worse.


I guess there are elements of snootiness on both sides.

Certainly there is a lot of jeering and arrogance that comes from the so called "proper" clubs. Saracens are not seen as a "proper" club - just dismissed as an investors plaything as you call it.

To me it's an excuse - we only lost to Saracens because of their money. No you lost because you don't focus on what you can do better. None of these so called money bags sides are unbeatable - on the contrary Saracens are very much beatable.

Saracens are not perfect, I know the flaws at Saracens far more than anyone on these forums. Though saying that the unrelenting criticism of Wray is unfair.

Saracens aren't just a club that's been formed since professionalism. It started in 1876. Not as old as Richmond or Blackheath but it's still been around for a long time.

I wouldn't say either Bath or Saracens are well run. Both rely on heavy loans from generous benefactors to balance to books. Both could stop providing these loans meaning that the clubs would be unable to pay wages, etc. That's not well run.

Not sure it that's what you're saying either but since they were the focus of the topic I thought I'd bring it back to them.

Depends how you define well run. Right now we are not sustainable and will never be until the stadium situation is resolved, which is actually the owner's number one goal.