AP Clubs Vote to Block Salary Cap Investigation!

First topic message reminder :

It's from The Times so only a snap shot:

Exclusive: Clubs block salary-cap investigation

Saracens and one other club had reportedly been under investigation for alleged breaches

John Westerby, Owen Slot Chief Rugby Correspondent

Leading clubs in England have voted in favour of suspending investigations into potential salary-cap breaches to protect the image of the Aviva Premiership.
At a time when Saracens and one other club had reportedly been under investigation for alleged breaches, The Times understands that a majority of clubs have voted for inquiries to be suspended, in part for fear of alienating sponsors and fans, and jeopardising their position in negotiations with the RFU over a new relationship governing the release of England players.

I can not see how this can mean anything other then Saracens were found to be in breach of the cap, and the clubs have decided to act amongst themselves and cover it up rather then it go further.

Is this good for the game in England?

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah the view that the PRL are out to destroy rugby

I would not say they were out to destroy rugby, I would say they will end up destroying it the way they are going, they have already buggered up our European competitions, they will now turn the AP into the French league, and look how that is working for the French national side.

The PRL are getting too powerful too quickly, they need to be reigned in a little before they do more damage than what can be repaired.

You're like a NIMBY. The PRL are excellent for rugby in the NH.

The Euro comps are fine. We still need a more elite top tier for my money but we're on the right path. They aren't out to destroy anything. The clubs have made an error here though as we just can't tell what is going on. It allows people to pretend their unions are all about spreading the love, not particularly helpful.

"Premiership Rugby’s salary cap secrecy shows a lack of moral authority "

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/apr/30/premiership-rugby-salary-cap-moral-authority

Don Alfonso wrote:"Premiership Rugby’s salary cap secrecy shows a lack of moral authority "

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/apr/30/premiership-rugby-salary-cap-moral-authority

That's rich coming from that socialist rag.

It's very telling, coming from this socialist rag, that they would turn on the PRL after having very strongly supported them during their Euro battle with the Unions.

PRL, or at the very least some of those in it, are morally corrupt.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

If I was a Saints fan I would be furious. unlike Saracens their team operates at a profit. Keeping to the salary cap means their squad depth is not as good as others, and leads them to at times look knackered. Perhaps they shoudl just cheat instead.
.

How do you know Saints don't keep to the salary cap? Just because they make a profit doesn't mean they spend less than those that make a loss.

Chunky

LT is not saying Saints don't keep to the salary cap, the opposite in fact. As a .plc they have to answer to their shareholders who would look rather bleekly on any such breach. They have a quality squad but with limited numbers and rely on a very good academy to suppliment the squad when necessary.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

If I was a Saints fan I would be furious. unlike Saracens their team operates at a profit. Keeping to the salary cap means their squad depth is not as good as others, and leads them to at times look knackered. Perhaps they shoudl just cheat instead.
.

How do you know Saints don't keep to the salary cap? Just because they make a profit doesn't mean they spend less than those that make a loss.

Chunky

LT is not saying Saints don't keep to the salary cap, the opposite in fact. As a .plc they have to answer to their shareholders who would look rather bleekly on any such breach. They have a quality squad but with limited numbers and rely on a very good academy to suppliment the squad when necessary.

In that case, I'm confused by this:

"unlike Saracens their team operates at a profit. Keeping to the salary cap means their squad depth is not as good as others"

Munchkin wrote:It's very telling, coming from this socialist rag, that they would turn on the PRL after having very strongly supported them during their Euro battle with the Unions.

PRL, or at the very least some of those in it, are morally corrupt.

Or perhaps it shows they had a legitimate opinion over Europe that wasn't based on blindly following the PRL lead and it was those that saw them as such who were the blind biased ones?

There's no point in arguing in favour of the PRL. You cant win. They will always be seen as a money hungry, power craving, screw the little guy organisation by some fans from the other home nations.

On this thread alone you had a poster bragging about how much money the Six Nations/ IRFU makes, but then saying how making money is turning rugby into Premiership football. You couldn't make it up.

MichaelT wrote:There's no point in arguing in favour of the PRL. You cant win. They will always be seen as a money hungry, power craving, screw the little guy organisation by some fans from the other home nations.

On this thread alone you had a poster bragging about how much money the Six Nations/ IRFU makes, but then saying how making money is turning rugby into Premiership football. You couldn't make it up.

It isn't just the other nations that are pointing an accusing finger at PRL. It's the British press, including a paper that has firmly sided with PRL, and take a look at other AP clubs forums, such as Quins, Leicester and Northampton. They are also questioning the integrity of PRL, with some even accusing those clubs being investigated of cheating.

These AP fans are also not happy that their club has possibly voted to suspend the cap investigation.

I am just going on what I know, where is all this extra money from the CC ?

Where are the big sponsors we were promised ?

The second tier is STILL a joke, they promised a more serious one, where is it ?

They have buggered Europe up, now potentially they are hiding cheating under the carpet, cheating the rules THEY brought in and I think they will not be finished there, I think the 6N will be next, I just think they are getting a bit too powerful for my liking, ok they need to do a job, but they are not here to run the show, that is what the unions are for.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:It's very telling, coming from this socialist rag, that they would turn on the PRL after having very strongly supported them during their Euro battle with the Unions.

PRL, or at the very least some of those in it, are morally corrupt.

Or perhaps it shows they had a legitimate opinion over Europe that wasn't based on blindly following the PRL lead and it was those that saw them as such who were the blind biased ones?

Nice try, Hammer.

I think it's more a case of rats leaving a sinking ship once they realised they couldn't defend the indefensible. It suited their particular bias to side against ERC. It doesn't suit their particular bias to allow cheating the salary cap to further tarnish the reputation of the AP.

LordDowlais wrote:I am just going on what I know, where is all this extra money from the CC ?

Where are the big sponsors we were promised ?

The second tier is STILL a joke, they promised a more serious one, where is it ?

They have buggered Europe up, now potentially they are hiding cheating under the carpet, cheating the rules THEY brought in and I think they will not be finished there, I think the 6N will be next, I just think they are getting a bit too powerful for my liking, ok they need to do a job, but they are not here to run the show, that is what the unions are for.

Load of tripe I'm afraid. What they did to Europe needed to be done. This "6N will be next" stuff is just a bizarre nothing rant. All they are doing is looking after their own. And THAT is what pro rugby needs to do across the world.

Munchkin wrote:It suited their particular bias to side against ERC.

Why on earth would it suit their bias to side with one argument for PRL and not the other?

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:It suited their particular bias to side against ERC.

Why on earth would it suit their bias to side with one argument for PRL and not the other?

Because one favours English rugby. The other damages it. I would have thought that obvious.

Chunky Norwich wrote:Load of tripe I'm afraid

If that is what you think,then please tell me, where is all this extra money for playing in Europe ?

Where are the big sponsors ?

Why is the second tier comp STILL a joke ?

No extra money.
No Sponsors.
Second tier still not being taken serious.

All that has changed is the amount of English and French sides that take part in the top tier, it is a farce, and will never be as good as the HC. They have taken away the magic of being in Europe, and diluted it down with too many French V French and English V English games.

Munchkin wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:It suited their particular bias to side against ERC.

Why on earth would it suit their bias to side with one argument for PRL and not the other?

Because one favours English rugby. The other damages it. I would have thought that obvious.

Surely everybody in England would have the same opinion then if it is such a cut and dry issue?

Same opinion of what? Most AP fans and Press sided with PRL during their battle with the Unions. It appears that most don't support PRL over this salary cap fiasco.

LordDowlais wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:Load of tripe I'm afraid

If that is what you think,then please tell me, where is all this extra money for playing in Europe ?

Where are the big sponsors ?

Why is the second tier comp STILL a joke ?

No extra money.
No Sponsors.
Second tie still not being taken serious.

All that has changed is the amount of English and French sides that take part in the top tier, it is a farce, and will never be as good as the HC. They have taken away the majic of being in Europe, and diluted it down with too many French V French and English V English games.

As I've said previously you are expecting miracles. They haven't even set up the whole HQ in Switzerland yet? The breakaway was needed but will take a few seasons to perfect.
I have no idea why you say there are "no sponsors". When you know full well that Heineken are tournament partners.

Given your rant about games, can you tell me how many additional French v French and French v English matches there were this season compared to last season? Thanks.

Munchkin wrote:Same opinion of what? Most AP sided with PRL during their battle with the Unions. It appears that most don't support PRL over this salary cap fiasco.

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no bias. They're just calling it as they see it.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Same opinion of what? Most AP sided with PRL during their battle with the Unions. It appears that most don't support PRL over this salary cap fiasco.

I have no idea what you're talking about. There is no bias. They're just calling it as they see it.

Of course there was bias, Chunky. Hammer was trying to have a wee dig at me with his quote about bias. Seems he doesn't forget

Chunky Norwich wrote:As I've said previously you are expecting miracles.

I am not expecting miracles, I am expecting to have what they said they would give us.

We were told we would have this new European utopia from day one, straight away, but we have not had it, the second tier remains without a sponsor and is still not taken serious, despite what was said about getting more teams in it to make it a "better product". Nobody said anything about waiting a few seasons, we were told that the ERC were rubbish, we are better, let us sort out Europe for the better, but it is not. All the Pro12 sides are getting are the scraps from the table. We were supposed to be getting more money than we could ever dream of from Europe now, but the truth is we are not.

It is lies on top of lies from them, so that they could get what they wanted, and now we have this "investigation block" to further tarnish their already tarnished reputations, as I have said, the PRL are becoming TOO powerful, they need to be reminded that they are not here to run the show, that is what the unions are for.

LordDowlais wrote: It is lies on top of lies from them, so that they could get what they wanted, and now we have this "investigation block" to further tarnish their already tarnished reputations, as I have said, the PRL are becoming TOO powerful, they need to be reminded that they are not here to run the show, that is what the unions are for.

It is the PRLs job to run club rugby in England. I am not sure how anything they do can have such a detrimental effect on club rugby elsewhere. If it does, those countries need to look at themselves and ask why can't they sustain a product that people are interested in without English club teams being involved.

MichaelT wrote:It is the PRLs job to run club rugby in England.

Then why don't they enforce their own rules with regards to the salary cap ?

LordDowlais wrote:

MichaelT wrote:It is the PRLs job to run club rugby in England.

Then why don't they enforce their own rules with regards to the salary cap ?

If the clubs themselves have voted to suspend the investigation, then that is up to them. Its members have decided that is what they want. Using a vote system. If it comes out that the clubs want the investigation but the PRL said no they wont, then there is an issue.

For all we know, their spend could be classed as under the cap from next season with the new increase. Kind of difficult to punish for doing something that everyone else can now do anyway.

MichaelT wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

MichaelT wrote:It is the PRLs job to run club rugby in England.

Then why don't they enforce their own rules with regards to the salary cap ?

If the clubs themselves have voted to suspend the investigation, then that is up to them. Its members have decided that is what they want. Using a vote system. If it comes out that the clubs want the investigation but the PRL said no they wont, then there is an issue.

For all we know, their spend could be classed as under the cap from next season with the new increase. Kind of difficult to punish for doing something that everyone else can now do anyway.

A bit soon to be on the slippery slope, don't you think.

What happens when one of the Saracens players picks up a ban for eye gouging or something deserving of a ban and when he is banned, Saracens threaten to sue the organisation for doing so (preventing them 'trade'. Will the PRL have the backbone (& money) to stand up to them?

(Something similar happened between the ERC & a French club about a ban in the early '00s. The ERC (with Union backing) were able to take them on).

So this decision to suspend the investigation was taken in February in order to stop the league being tainted any further, but nothing was said about it, and rumours and speculation about salary cap breaches and the clubs involve continued to find their way into media and taint the league further. And it leaks into media now at about the worst time in how it might be viewed.

As a decision that has to be viewed as pretty amateur if that was the objective since they managed to achieve the exact opposite.

In fact, it's so inept, I don't believe this story - the dates, the timing, the supposed intent - it's just too cack-handed to be true. The PRL are smarter than this, I thought.

Leaving that aside, the rest of the story appears to indicate that expansion and ring fencing of the league has been approved

I think it's most likely that what has happened here is that the investigation has found enough to suggest that the cap is being breached in spirit by at least one team, but there is disagreement over whether it's being breached according to the (somewhat loosely worded) letter of the cap rules.

The alleged guilty party have got their lawyers out, and the bulk of the remaining teams have decided that, rather than go to open war in the courts right now, this is better resolved in the closed season.

Everything that's been published - including some reported comments from Nigel Wray to the effect that "our legal advisors have told us that we're not breaking the cap" - is consistent with that interpretation. It's not ideal - I would prefer that we had clarity - but if one party is threatening a legal nuclear option, then it's the lesser of two evils.

A lot of posters on these boards seem to forget that the PRL is not some monolithic entity like the unions. It is a negotiating and administrative body set up by the English clubs to run their league. What it does and says is governed largely by the votes of the individual clubs who - shock! horror! scandal! - vote in line with what they see as their own self interest.

There are differences in opinion as to what that self-interest is. The majority of clubs have consistently been in favour of the cap, recognising that even if they can afford to spend over it, an arms race of spending doesn't help anyone in the long run. However, there are a couple of clubs who have made an open secret of their desire to spend right now at a level that would match the French clubs, rather than work to bring everyone up to that level.

I disagree with that point of view, but these clubs are shareholders in the PRL business and it's their right to vote how they want that's what having a vote means. We could speculate about what a better system might be given a blank sheet of paper, but we don't have one and I also have little doubt that English, and probably NH professional, rugby would be in a far worse state had the RFU been in charge from the outset. The RFU has grown up a lot in the last 4-5 years, but it was hopelessly behind the times in the early days.

Poorfour wrote:

A lot of posters on these boards seem to forget that the PRL is not some monolithic entity like the unions. It is a negotiating and administrative body set up by the English clubs to run their league. What it does and says is governed largely by the votes of the individual clubs who - shock! horror! scandal! - vote in line with what they see as their own self interest.

It's just that that's a rather elementary understanding of the term monolithic entity, Poorfour.  A cute'n'cuddly version of the democratic people power of PRL and a slimy'n'corruptible version of a Union.  

It's virtually like saying the present British Government isn't a monolith - after all, it was voted for by the people the last time.  But it is still a monolith because it's a fact that all the people last time didn't vote for the Government parties yet have had to accept their rule. And it's a certain fact too that not all the people will vote for the Government parties this time round either but will have to accept their rule.  Somebody in the collective of voters never likes the way things are being Governed on their behalf but they get stuck with those Governers until the next time they get to vote.

Same as Unions.  The many led by the few, and the unsatisfied having to accept 'voted for' pathways even though they themselves are dead against some of those paths.  

I just don't buy this Union=Evil Dictatorship, PRL=Power to the People.  Power is where is always sits - with the money people who sit behind these cover companies.  BT and SKY and Sponsors rule the roost - not PRL or the RFU.  The payers rule the sport.  The payers make it 'known' to the 'bought' how the dynamics of image propels the product.  Let's not ruin the product for the sake of uncovering a few miscreants.  Let's hold to profit principles of image.  It seems an investigation at this time is considered to be in a sense 'Bringing the game into disrepute'.  Irony on top of irony.

Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face - that's what some of you want!

Rugby world 2015 is happening in a few months - you really think anyone wants to open a huge can of worms just before this?

Saracens and Bath - allegedly two clubs under investigation are supplying quite a few of the players for the England team.

It might be seen as a honest thing to hammer Saracens but it might well backfire and mean that many skeletons in numerous closets are open for all to see.

I am sure posters like TJ would love to see the destruction of English rugby but I personally do not.

This is bigger than one club as quite clearly shown by this decision to block an investigation.

I find it funny when people talk about transparency. How far do you go? Surely there must be some balance?


Also I do find the continual demonisation of Nigel Wray amusing. Nigel Wray has probably been to more rugby matches than most of you - he goes to practically every single Saracens game. He is a fervent supporter of Saracens - not just someone looking who goes to a handful of games a season. He might be a multi millionaire but he doesn't sit in his ivory tower, he mixes with normal fans. He's very popular at Saracens. I am not naive though - I know he has his own interests at heart too but he's not as selfish as made out.

Londontiger you said Saints should cheat instead. Actually they do. So do all sides in rugby union to some extent. Every team tries to get away with it whether it's a crooked lineout, trying to rough up a key player of the opposition (on the weekend Manoa shoulder charged Billy, injuring Saracens' best player and got away with it), crooked feed in the scrum, not rolling away, slowing down the ball, bringing down a maul, being offside etc.

Ref doesn't blow up on every offense does he? Of course not!

Some sides are better at cheating than others. You can say it's not right but it's still part of the game.

To be honest the top sides are generally the best cheaters. E.g. Wasps and their uncontested scrums, Tigers renowned for being cheats(Hand of Back is notorious of course). Tigers have lost their cheating edge and they aren't as good as they used to be.


Look at Mccaw and his invisible cloak.....

Saying the likes of Saracens and Bath are cheats is like the pot calling the kettle black.

I think the best thing to do would be for the PRL to instruct Saracens and Bath to get their books in order without rocking the boat and causing a storm. That's of course if they can find substantial evidence that they are breaking the cap.

A scandal before the RWC would severely damage the reputation of English rugby as a whole.

Perhaps that's what you want but I personally think that's incredibly foolish.

Sin é wrote:A bit soon to be on the slippery slope, don't you think.

What happens when one of the Saracens players picks up a ban for eye gouging or something deserving of a ban and when he is banned, Saracens threaten to sue the organisation for doing so (preventing them 'trade'. Will the PRL have the backbone (& money) to stand up to them?

(Something similar happened between the ERC & a French club about a ban in the early '00s. The ERC (with Union backing) were able to take them on).

What does that have to do with the PRL? They don't apply or enforce discipline bans. That's the RFU. If Saracens did sue and it turned out that sporting discplinary bans are illegal under UK or EU law it's a bit bigger than rugby isn't it? Also, shouldn't these regulations, etc, be legal?

Pot Hale, didn't the Times report state that the decision was taken partly due to league image? That could be a very very minor one, when there is another, much better reason, which wasn't disclosed via the article because it was unknown (or not sexy enough to sell papers)?

Cheating off the pitch is a bit different though, the same as knowingly going off your feet is different to blood capsules. Presumably it'll all come out in the wash after the WC.

no 7 & 1/2 it's still knowingly cheating though despite being a different type of cheating.

You might believe one is worse than the other but they are still cheating if they are knowingly going off their feet.

I guess it's because some parts of cheating are deemed acceptable and some are not.

Cheating salary cap - no no! Deliberately looking to injure an opposition - why not? Hard to prove but it's still unsavoury.

If you have team X with players Y and Z looking to deliberately injure players and succeed - surely that is an unfair advantage also?

Cheating is cheating, now matter how you try and polish it, for me, and I am probably alone in this, but the punishment of cheating, and showing that you will not put up with it, and showing the world that you will not except any breaching of the rules for fear of punishment, and showing everybody else how you deal with it, will do far less damage than sweeping it under the carpet until the WC is out of the way.

To me as an outsider looking in, what has happened here has further tarnished the reputation I have already in my mind as regards to the PLR. If they had came out straight away and said we are not putting up with this, it is our rules and you have broken them, and then punished them accordingly I would have had a lot more respect, and the damage that has been caused would have been sorted, and lets be honest, we would have all forgotten about it by the time the WC comes around anyway.

For me what has happened is far worst than what would have happened if they did not "block" the investigation.

Some cheating is more 'accepted' for want of a better word. Not sure deliberately going out to injure a player is a 'why not', look at Calum Clark. Don't think many would defend that but there are clearly shades of grey. The difficulty this decision has presented is that we don't know the shade. Is it wide spread cheating, is it a mistake with a free car. It just feeds more conspiracy theories for me and doesn't acknowledge any issues.

If Cheating on the pitch is the same as cheating the financial system, then Munster should be docked 30 points.

ATM there is no evidence that an investigation has been "blocked". Instead rumours from a single source that an unverified investigation has been suspended till after the end of the season.

The big issue is the lack of transparency, so what we get is rumour and speculation which feeds the trolls.


Beshocked if players are deemed guilty of foul play they are banned. Deliberately breaking the salary cap is just as bad as deliberate foul play.

Chunky Norwich wrote:If Cheating on the pitch is the same as cheating the financial system, then Munster should be docked 30 points.

Here's hoping the Munster boys 'cheat' all the way to the title....hopefully using Irish refs and TMOs to get there.    If you can't beat the Undersweepers of Carpetdom, why not join 'em?

beshocked wrote:Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face - that's what some of you want!

Rugby world 2015 is happening in a few months - you really think anyone wants to open a huge can of worms just before this?

Saracens and Bath - allegedly two clubs under investigation are supplying quite a few of the players for the England team.

It might be seen as a honest thing to hammer Saracens but it might well backfire and mean that many skeletons in numerous closets are open for all to see.

I am sure posters like TJ would love to see the destruction of English rugby but I personally do not.

This is bigger than one club as quite clearly shown by this decision to block an investigation.

I find it funny when people talk about transparency. How far do you go? Surely there must be some balance?


Also I do find the continual demonisation of Nigel Wray amusing. Nigel Wray has probably been to more rugby matches than most of you - he goes to practically every single Saracens game. He is a fervent supporter of Saracens - not just someone looking who goes to a handful of games a season. He might be a multi millionaire but he doesn't sit in his ivory tower, he mixes with normal fans. He's very popular at Saracens. I am not naive though - I know he has his own interests at heart too but he's not as selfish as made out.

Londontiger you said Saints should cheat instead. Actually they do. So do all sides in rugby union to some extent. Every team tries to get away with it whether it's a crooked lineout, trying to rough up a key player of the opposition (on the weekend Manoa shoulder charged Billy, injuring Saracens' best player and got away with it), crooked feed in the scrum, not rolling away, slowing down the ball, bringing down a maul, being offside etc.

Ref doesn't blow up on every offense does he? Of course not!

Some sides are better at cheating than others. You can say it's not right but it's still part of the game.

To be honest the top sides are generally the best cheaters. E.g. Wasps and their uncontested scrums, Tigers renowned for being cheats(Hand of Back is notorious of course).  Tigers have lost their cheating edge and they aren't as good as they used to be.


Look at Mccaw and his invisible cloak.....

Saying the likes of Saracens and Bath are cheats is like the pot calling the kettle black.

I think the best thing to do would be for the PRL to instruct Saracens and Bath to get their books in order without rocking the boat and causing a storm. That's of course if they can find substantial evidence that they are breaking the cap.

A scandal before the RWC would severely damage the reputation of English rugby as a whole.

Perhaps that's what you want but I personally think that's incredibly foolish.

The scandal is already out there, beshocked. The scandal that an investigation into certain clubs cheating has been blocked, and a cheating that allows those clubs to gain wins, points, league position, play off places, Euro qualification, silverware, revenue and while basically stealing revenue from those clubs that play it straight. A lot of people not happy.

This apparently was blocked in February. If the investigation had have been allowed to continue then it could have been resolved by now. Possibly. The 2 clubs in question would take the hit of points deducted, a hefty fine, and move on. If found guilty. But no, allegedly there were threats to block ring fencing the league by those clubs being investigated and so the minnows voted with them. There were also threats by Wray to enter a legal fight against the imposing of the salary cap and any sanctions for breaking it. A very long and costly process. This much I do know.

This suspension of the investigation has made things worse, not better.

SecretFly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:If Cheating on the pitch is the same as cheating the financial system, then Munster should be docked 30 points.

Here's hoping the Munster boys 'cheat' all the way to the title....hopefully using Irish refs and TMOs to get there.    If you can't beat the Undersweepers of Carpetdom, why not join 'em?

As long as Ulster don't win it.

Lorddowlais that's a nice sentiment but cheating is rife in rugby. Why not start with small things like policing crooked feeds?

No 7 & 1/2 some players get away with it, some don't.

Neil Back got away with clear cut cheating in a HC final.

Londontiger you honestly think that all foul play is picked up? No of course not - so much cheating in rugby that it's very difficult for refs to keep up. Small things can add up. Certainly over a season. Let's say team X does crooked scrum feeds every game but the ref doesn't pick it up surely that is an unfair advantage?

Oh and Saracens haven't been found guilty of anything yet.

Be careful what you wish for. You can open the can of worms but you might not be pleased with the consequences.

Personally what I think the PRL and RFU should do - suspend any investigation of the salary caps till the RWC has ended. After the RWC then there are two options - either behind the scenes get Saracens and the other club to get their house in order which will prevent humiliation of those clubs or alternatively punish both clubs publicly with docked points etc.

The most important thing is that this is done after the RWC. You might say this is wrong - personally I think anything that damages English rugby just before the RWC in England is detrimental to rugby as a whole.

After the RWC then the PRL and RFU can decide what to do if indeed there is a case for Saracens and the unnamed club to answer.

Chunky Norwich wrote:

SecretFly wrote:

Chunky Norwich wrote:If Cheating on the pitch is the same as cheating the financial system, then Munster should be docked 30 points.

Here's hoping the Munster boys 'cheat' all the way to the title....hopefully using Irish refs and TMOs to get there.    If you can't beat the Undersweepers of Carpetdom, why not join 'em?

 

As long as Ulster don't win it.

beshocked wrote:I think the best thing to do would be for the PRL to instruct Saracens and Bath to get their books in order without rocking the boat and causing a storm. That's of course if they can find substantial evidence that they are breaking the cap.

They did that in 2012, when the new more punitive punishments were brought in (and many clubs had received small fines for inadvertent breaches). Any club that failed to heed the warning then should face the full sanction. Even my club.

The only problem with that beshocked is that there's the possibility that any punishment may cost placings in the league. Any retrospective ban after the world cup may not take it into account or may not be able to. Personally I think it should have been dealt with rather than try to delay because of the world cup but it may well have been damaging.

If resumed, any club found guilty will have the points deductions next season.

Munchkin wrote:

beshocked wrote:Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face - that's what some of you want!

Rugby world 2015 is happening in a few months - you really think anyone wants to open a huge can of worms just before this?

Saracens and Bath - allegedly two clubs under investigation are supplying quite a few of the players for the England team.

It might be seen as a honest thing to hammer Saracens but it might well backfire and mean that many skeletons in numerous closets are open for all to see.

I am sure posters like TJ would love to see the destruction of English rugby but I personally do not.

This is bigger than one club as quite clearly shown by this decision to block an investigation.

I find it funny when people talk about transparency. How far do you go? Surely there must be some balance?


Also I do find the continual demonisation of Nigel Wray amusing. Nigel Wray has probably been to more rugby matches than most of you - he goes to practically every single Saracens game. He is a fervent supporter of Saracens - not just someone looking who goes to a handful of games a season. He might be a multi millionaire but he doesn't sit in his ivory tower, he mixes with normal fans. He's very popular at Saracens. I am not naive though - I know he has his own interests at heart too but he's not as selfish as made out.

Londontiger you said Saints should cheat instead. Actually they do. So do all sides in rugby union to some extent. Every team tries to get away with it whether it's a crooked lineout, trying to rough up a key player of the opposition (on the weekend Manoa shoulder charged Billy, injuring Saracens' best player and got away with it), crooked feed in the scrum, not rolling away, slowing down the ball, bringing down a maul, being offside etc.

Ref doesn't blow up on every offense does he? Of course not!

Some sides are better at cheating than others. You can say it's not right but it's still part of the game.

To be honest the top sides are generally the best cheaters. E.g. Wasps and their uncontested scrums, Tigers renowned for being cheats(Hand of Back is notorious of course).  Tigers have lost their cheating edge and they aren't as good as they used to be.


Look at Mccaw and his invisible cloak.....

Saying the likes of Saracens and Bath are cheats is like the pot calling the kettle black.

I think the best thing to do would be for the PRL to instruct Saracens and Bath to get their books in order without rocking the boat and causing a storm. That's of course if they can find substantial evidence that they are breaking the cap.

A scandal before the RWC would severely damage the reputation of English rugby as a whole.

Perhaps that's what you want but I personally think that's incredibly foolish.

The scandal is already out there, beshocked. The scandal that an investigation into certain clubs cheating has been blocked, and a cheating that allows those clubs to gain wins, points, league position, play off places, Euro qualification, silverware, revenue and while basically stealing revenue from those clubs that play it straight. A lot of people not happy.

This apparently was blocked in February. If the investigation had have been allowed to continue then it could have been resolved by now. Possibly. The 2 clubs in question would take the hit of points deducted, a hefty fine, and move on. If found guilty. But no, allegedly there were threats to block ring fencing the league by those clubs being investigated and so the minnows voted with them. There were also threats by Wray to enter a legal fight against the imposing of the salary cap and any sanctions for breaking it. A very long and costly process. This much I do know.

This suspension of the investigation has made things worse, not better.

Munchkin there is still no proof of wrongdoing. Just rumours and Poopie stirring at the moment.

Hit of points deducted,hefty fine and move on? You think it's that straightforward?

beshocked wrote:

I am sure posters like TJ would love to see the destruction of English rugby but I personally do not.

Don't feed the trolls .

SecretFly wrote:
It's just that that's a rather elementary understanding of the term monolithic entity, Poorfour.  A cute'n'cuddly version of the democratic people power of PRL and a slimy'n'corruptible version of a Union.  

Actually, you've completely missed my point. I wasn't arguing some pollyanna-ish "democracy good, something else unspecified bad". I was making the point that the way posters on the boards talk about the PRL suggests that they have a very poor understanding of what these organisations are and how they work. I'm including you in that.

BT and Sky and sponsors don't call the shots. I know some of the guys who work for one of the broadcasters on sports rights and I know how much and how little control they had over the ERC crisis. They have influence, particularly over when games are played, but by no means do they have control.

The point about unions and the PRL is very simple: unions have such a large constituency that their members can't directly influence them (also, governance and transparency leave a lot to be desired). The PRL has one constituency, its professional club members, and since they all hold a vote they can influence it directly. A union can make decisions that are at odds with what their professional clubs want (as Welsh fans have seen, time and again). The PRL can't. By definition what it does reflects the decision of the majority of its members. No-one else has any rights - legal and to a large extent moral - over that.

That may or may not be good for rugby as a whole. Personally, I think it is, because the PRL members have thus far voted for measures that maintain the stability of the professional game in England and grow its revenues. As someone who's a fan of both club and international rugby, that's something I want to see.

The PRL is not a perfect set up (though it's probably the best we could have got given where rugby in England started from), and I won't defend the everything it does on principle; nor will I defend the actions of individual clubs. But I won't cry "cover up!" when I don't have the facts, and I will accept messy compromises when the realpolitik doesn't allow for anything else.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The only problem with that beshocked is that there's the possibility that any punishment may cost placings in the league. Any retrospective ban after the world cup may not take it into account or may not be able to. Personally I think it should have been dealt with rather than try to delay because of the world cup but it may well have been damaging.

If the choice was between lawsuits now or the chance of a negotiated resolution over the summer - which what little we know suggests it may have been - then I think I know what I would have chosen.

Funny thing is that Saracens have been branded as guilty before we know the full facts. No one here knows the full story and facts. It's easier to point the finger. Surely innocent till proven guilty should still be the term used?

The media are whipping up a storm to sell newspapers but there's very little fact in what they say. Where's the evidence and proof?