AP Clubs Vote to Block Salary Cap Investigation!

by yappysnap Wed 29 Apr 2015, 10:44 am

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?

by **Ozzy3213** Sun 03 May 2015, 9:04 am

Munchkin wrote:Gloucester’s chairman is one that would like to see the offending clubs punished. All those who were at the meeting are bound by a gagging order under threat of legal action, I assume.

From the Gloucester Citizen:

Walkinshaw remained tight-lipped but he revealed Gloucester support the cap and that more information will emerge in the weeks ahead.

Walkinshaw said: "I have got plenty of views, none of which I am going to share with you tonight. There is only so much I can say to the press at the moment in time. I would love to speak more but I can't.

"We are hugely in favour of the salary cap. We fought very hard to push any salary punishments that there were to be and we will have to wait and see what happens with that."

I wouldn't believe everything you read in a newspaper.

by nathan Sun 03 May 2015, 9:07 am

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/11572946/Premiership-Rugby-denies-salary-cap-culprits-could-avoid-sanctions.html

Looks like they have confirmed that it's only a suspension and not a halt to the investigation and that anyone found breaking the cap will be dealt with.

Love the choice of photo on that news article. Lol

by SecretFly Sun 03 May 2015, 11:03 am

So - if one or two sides are found guilty after the season ends when the investigation is supposedly going to be restarted, will that mean they'll be withdrawn from the top six finishers list for the season (if they're in that top six)? Will the next two beneath step up to play in the Champions Cup?

by Guest Sun 03 May 2015, 11:21 am

Ozzy3213 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:Gloucester’s chairman is one that would like to see the offending clubs punished. All those who were at the meeting are bound by a gagging order under threat of legal action, I assume.

From the Gloucester Citizen:

Walkinshaw remained tight-lipped but he revealed Gloucester support the cap and that more information will emerge in the weeks ahead.

Walkinshaw said: "I have got plenty of views, none of which I am going to share with you tonight. There is only so much I can say to the press at the moment in time. I would love to speak more but I can't.

"We are hugely in favour of the salary cap. We fought very hard to push any salary punishments that there were to be and we will have to wait and see what happens with that."

I wouldn't believe everything you read in a newspaper.

I don't, Ozzy, but what's not to believe? That there are clubs that have cheated the salary cap? That there has been a suspension of the investigation (or at the very least a suspension of releasing its findings)? That all those present at the meeting have been ordered not to speak about any of this in public? Considering what walkinshaw has stated is completely in keeping with that of your very own source, give me a reason not to believe it?

by doctor_grey Sun 03 May 2015, 11:24 am

nathan wrote:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/11572946/Premiership-Rugby-denies-salary-cap-culprits-could-avoid-sanctions.html

Looks like they have confirmed that it's only a suspension and not a halt to the investigation and that anyone found breaking the cap will be dealt with.

Love the choice of photo on that news article. Lol

Like the photo, too. But it would have been better had it included a picture of Sarries and Bath. I suppose Nigel Wray is accurate when he states Sarries are not 'currently' being investigated. There is no investigation at this present time. But there was, and might well be again, just not now. I give him 10 credits for excellent wordsmithing.

by Guest Sun 03 May 2015, 11:41 am

"However, one source indicated that any complex investigations could continue into next season. Under existing regulations the salary cap manager has up to five years to initiate action against a club for any alleged regulation breach."

Or five years to bury it.

by No 7&1/2 Sun 03 May 2015, 12:00 pm

It is Bath and and Saracens on my link Doc, mischievous editor.

Dont think it ll be buried Munchkin just think they dont want it in world cup year.

by SecretFly Sun 03 May 2015, 12:17 pm

But that still means perhaps two AP sides will be in the CC next year when perhaps two other sides, by right and by rules compliance, should be.

Like I said earlier - these things aren't easy. It can be a big effort to find the right form to last two or three seasons at the right levels to be in contention to win big prizes. A lot of effort and sweat from players and coaches to find those hoped-for periods of top form.
So - in the delaying of results or investigations, the possibility is that a side that had their shot at making some big statements in a CC competition will now potentially be denied their moment because some people want to delay a day in court for rule breaking suspects.

On the other hand - If the PRL do make a snap judgement of guilt or innocence After the WC, and punish sides that are found guilty by withdrawing them from the 2016 CC. The schidt will hit the fan as angry bosses and fans will make their sense of hurt public.

There doesn't seem to be any easy solution to this one. Someone is gonna be seriously p-issed regardless of outcome.

by **Ozzy3213** Sun 03 May 2015, 12:20 pm

Munchkin wrote:
Ozzy3213 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:Gloucester’s chairman is one that would like to see the offending clubs punished. All those who were at the meeting are bound by a gagging order under threat of legal action, I assume.

From the Gloucester Citizen:

Walkinshaw remained tight-lipped but he revealed Gloucester support the cap and that more information will emerge in the weeks ahead.

Walkinshaw said: "I have got plenty of views, none of which I am going to share with you tonight. There is only so much I can say to the press at the moment in time. I would love to speak more but I can't.

"We are hugely in favour of the salary cap. We fought very hard to push any salary punishments that there were to be and we will have to wait and see what happens with that."

I wouldn't believe everything you read in a newspaper.

I don't, Ozzy, but what's not to believe? That there are clubs that have cheated the salary cap? That there has been a suspension of the investigation (or at the very least a suspension of releasing its findings)? That all those present at the meeting have been ordered not to speak about any of this in public? Considering what walkinshaw has stated is completely in keeping with that of your very own source, give me a reason not to believe it?

As per what I've put in bold, Walkinshaw speak with forked tongue. Gloucester, as far as I am lead to believe were one of the clubs who supported the two clubs who have broken the rules and their 'keep it quiet' stance. I guess he's been clever with his words as Mr Wray was, but the more I find out about what goes on within the PRL and it's meetings, and the behaviour of some clubs and their officials, the more I am starting to fall out of love with the professional game.

by Guest Sun 03 May 2015, 12:35 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:It is Bath and and Saracens on my link Doc, mischievous editor.

Dont think it ll be buried Munchkin just think they dont want it in world cup year.

I don't know, but I feel the only reason it won't be buried is if the media, the players and the supporters keep the pressure on PRL to take action against those who broke the rules.

I'm not convinced by the world cup year argument. Not just because it's backfired on them, but think it really shouldn't matter world cup or not. 2 clubs have possibly been denied a top 6 place and Euro qualification. 2 clubs have possibly been denied a top 4 place and entry into the play-offs and all these clubs have possibly been robbed of extra revenue.

by Guest Sun 03 May 2015, 12:45 pm

Ozzy3213 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:
Ozzy3213 wrote:
Munchkin wrote:Gloucester’s chairman is one that would like to see the offending clubs punished. All those who were at the meeting are bound by a gagging order under threat of legal action, I assume.

From the Gloucester Citizen:

Walkinshaw remained tight-lipped but he revealed Gloucester support the cap and that more information will emerge in the weeks ahead.

Walkinshaw said: "I have got plenty of views, none of which I am going to share with you tonight. There is only so much I can say to the press at the moment in time. I would love to speak more but I can't.

"We are hugely in favour of the salary cap. We fought very hard to push any salary punishments that there were to be and we will have to wait and see what happens with that."

I wouldn't believe everything you read in a newspaper.

I don't, Ozzy, but what's not to believe? That there are clubs that have cheated the salary cap? That there has been a suspension of the investigation (or at the very least a suspension of releasing its findings)? That all those present at the meeting have been ordered not to speak about any of this in public? Considering what walkinshaw has stated is completely in keeping with that of your very own source, give me a reason not to believe it?

As per what I've put in bold, Walkinshaw speak with forked tongue. Gloucester, as far as I am lead to believe were one of the clubs who supported the two clubs who have broken the rules and their 'keep it quiet' stance. I guess he's been clever with his words as Mr Wray was, but the more I find out about what goes on within the PRL and it's meetings, and the behaviour of some clubs and their officials, the more I am starting to fall out of love with the professional game.

Ah, not that he was factually wrong about these issues, but more that he's playing the hypocrite.

I can understand your feelings about this, Ozzy, but every cloud has a silver lining Very Happy

This whole mess being exposed as it is on the threshing floor of the media and public opinion might just sort out the wheat from the chaff, and actually work for the better of AP/PRL in the long run.

by doctor_grey Sun 03 May 2015, 12:47 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:It is Bath and and Saracens on my link Doc, mischievous editor.

Dont think it ll be buried Munchkin just think they dont want it in world cup year.

Hmmmm. For me it's Sarries and Clermont.

I think the RWC point does have some merit. Just that we don't know if any of this will happen, though it is possible. I would presume that no one at the RFU or IRB (World Rugby) wants any negative publicity at their showcase event. Since the RWC generates funding for most Unions globally, it is possible that many people from around the world could bring pressure privately or publicly to achieve closure quickly. To me, the odd thing is the negative publicity is already here: Which is worse? The act or the cover-up?

by nathan Sun 03 May 2015, 12:50 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:It is Bath and and Saracens on my link Doc, mischievous editor.

Dont think it ll be buried Munchkin just think they dont want it in world cup year.
Hmmmm. For me it's Sarries and Clermont.

I think the RWC point does have some merit. Just that we don't know if any of this will happen, though it is possible. I would presume that no one at the RFU or IRB (World Rugby) wants any negative publicity at their showcase event. Since the RWC generates funding for most Unions globally, it is possible that many people from around the world could bring pressure privately or publicly to achieve closure quickly. To me, the odd thing is the negative publicity is already here: Which is worse? The act or the cover-up?

It's bath and sarries Headscratch

by doctor_grey Sun 03 May 2015, 12:52 pm

nathan wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:It is Bath and and Saracens on my link Doc, mischievous editor.

Dont think it ll be buried Munchkin just think they dont want it in world cup year.
Hmmmm. For me it's Sarries and Clermont.

I think the RWC point does have some merit. Just that we don't know if any of this will happen, though it is possible. I would presume that no one at the RFU or IRB (World Rugby) wants any negative publicity at their showcase event. Since the RWC generates funding for most Unions globally, it is possible that many people from around the world could bring pressure privately or publicly to achieve closure quickly. To me, the odd thing is the negative publicity is already here: Which is worse? The act or the cover-up?

It's bath and sarries

Maybe because I am accessing the link in America, the pic is different? I do see very different adverts if I use my UK VPN or not. Let me check.

by No 7&1/2 Sun 03 May 2015, 12:55 pm

SecretFly wrote:But that still means perhaps two AP sides will be in the CC next year when perhaps two other sides, by right and by rules compliance, should be.

Like I said earlier - these things aren't easy. It can be a big effort to find the right form to last two or three seasons at the right levels to be in contention to win big prizes. A lot of effort and sweat from players and coaches to find those hoped-for periods of top form.
So - in the delaying of results or investigations, the possibility is that a side that had their shot at making some big statements in a CC competition will now potentially be denied their moment because some people want to delay a day in court for rule breaking suspects.

On the other hand - If the PRL do make a snap judgement of guilt or innocence After the WC, and punish sides that are found guilty by withdrawing them from the 2016 CC. The schidt will hit the fan as angry bosses and fans will make their sense of hurt public.

There doesn't seem to be any easy solution to this one. Someone is gonna be seriously p-issed regardless of outcome.

Agree completely. Though I dont care if bosses stamp their feet following punishment if found guilty!

by yappysnap Sun 03 May 2015, 1:28 pm

It's Sarries, and Bath in their change strip. Look at the emblem on their shirts!

by **LondonTiger** Sun 03 May 2015, 1:37 pm

From left to right I think I see Francois Louw, Henry Thomas, Alistair Hargreaves and Kelly Brown.

by doctor_grey Sun 03 May 2015, 4:20 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:But that still means perhaps two AP sides will be in the CC next year when perhaps two other sides, by right and by rules compliance, should be.

Like I said earlier - these things aren't easy. It can be a big effort to find the right form to last two or three seasons at the right levels to be in contention to win big prizes. A lot of effort and sweat from players and coaches to find those hoped-for periods of top form.
So - in the delaying of results or investigations, the possibility is that a side that had their shot at making some big statements in a CC competition will now potentially be denied their moment because some people want to delay a day in court for rule breaking suspects.

On the other hand - If the PRL do make a snap judgement of guilt or innocence After the WC, and punish sides that are found guilty by withdrawing them from the 2016 CC. The schidt will hit the fan as angry bosses and fans will make their sense of hurt public.

There doesn't seem to be any easy solution to this one. Someone is gonna be seriously p-issed regardless of outcome.

Agree completely. Though I dont care if bosses stamp their feet following punishment if found guilty!

Dang, it was a different picture. The one on my UK vpn is indeed Bath and Sarries. Looks like Hargreaves in the picture for Sarries.

I see no reason for a snap judgement - If the investigation is thorough and a team is found to have violated the rules to which they had previously agreed, then that is that. Bugger 'em.

In a situation like this it doesn't really matter what the club management/owners have to say. If a club, or clubs, have violated the rules, then who do we hold as ultimately responsible? If you are in charge, you are responsible. Full stop.

The people who should be upset are the non-culpable players and staff, and of course, the supporters. I don't like the punishment for violations in the agreement. It screws the fans. I prefer to see the guilty parties gelded.
Publicly.

by wolfball Sun 03 May 2015, 5:01 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:But that still means perhaps two AP sides will be in the CC next year when perhaps two other sides, by right and by rules compliance, should be.

Like I said earlier - these things aren't easy. It can be a big effort to find the right form to last two or three seasons at the right levels to be in contention to win big prizes. A lot of effort and sweat from players and coaches to find those hoped-for periods of top form.
So - in the delaying of results or investigations, the possibility is that a side that had their shot at making some big statements in a CC competition will now potentially be denied their moment because some people want to delay a day in court for rule breaking suspects.

On the other hand - If the PRL do make a snap judgement of guilt or innocence After the WC, and punish sides that are found guilty by withdrawing them from the 2016 CC. The schidt will hit the fan as angry bosses and fans will make their sense of hurt public.

There doesn't seem to be any easy solution to this one. Someone is gonna be seriously p-issed regardless of outcome.

Agree completely. Though I dont care if bosses stamp their feet following punishment if found guilty!
Dang, it was a different picture. The one on my UK vpn is indeed Bath and Sarries. Looks like Hargreaves in the picture for Sarries.

I see no reason for a snap judgement - If the investigation is thorough and a team is found to have violated the rules to which they had previously agreed, then that is that. Bugger 'em.

In a situation like this it doesn't really matter what the club management/owners have to say. If a club, or clubs, have violated the rules, then who do we hold as ultimately responsible? If you are in charge, you are responsible. Full stop.

The people who should be upset are the non-culpable players and staff, and of course, the supporters. I don't like the punishment for violations in the agreement. It screws the fans. I prefer to see the guilty parties gelded.
Publicly.

I was living in Genoa in 2005 when Genoa FC were relegated two divisions for match fixing. There were literal riots in the streets, people pulled out of their cars, fires lit etc. It was chaos. Obviously there won't be the same reaction from rugby fans if PRL teams are relegated for cap cheating, but there is no way to separate punishing the fans from punishing those in charge. Because the most innocent aren't the fans of the guilty clubs, but the fans of the innocent clubs, who were robbed of possible play-off/place in europe. And also, if we see some fans of the guilty teams defend their team's actions, well then good riddance to them too.

by SecretFly Sun 03 May 2015, 5:11 pm

There's a bunch of sense being talked now on these threads! Okay, not by me Wink

- but wolf is right. It's fine to say fans of guilty sides are innocent. But so are fans of innocent sides, but those fans will still potentially be denied European games or AP playoffs because of the concept that Now is not the right time for Justice.

by doctor_grey Sun 03 May 2015, 5:29 pm

wolfball wrote:
doctor_grey wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:
SecretFly wrote:But that still means perhaps two AP sides will be in the CC next year when perhaps two other sides, by right and by rules compliance, should be.

Like I said earlier - these things aren't easy. It can be a big effort to find the right form to last two or three seasons at the right levels to be in contention to win big prizes. A lot of effort and sweat from players and coaches to find those hoped-for periods of top form.
So - in the delaying of results or investigations, the possibility is that a side that had their shot at making some big statements in a CC competition will now potentially be denied their moment because some people want to delay a day in court for rule breaking suspects.

On the other hand - If the PRL do make a snap judgement of guilt or innocence After the WC, and punish sides that are found guilty by withdrawing them from the 2016 CC. The schidt will hit the fan as angry bosses and fans will make their sense of hurt public.

There doesn't seem to be any easy solution to this one. Someone is gonna be seriously p-issed regardless of outcome.

Agree completely. Though I dont care if bosses stamp their feet following punishment if found guilty!
Dang, it was a different picture. The one on my UK vpn is indeed Bath and Sarries. Looks like Hargreaves in the picture for Sarries.

I see no reason for a snap judgement - If the investigation is thorough and a team is found to have violated the rules to which they had previously agreed, then that is that. Bugger 'em.

In a situation like this it doesn't really matter what the club management/owners have to say. If a club, or clubs, have violated the rules, then who do we hold as ultimately responsible? If you are in charge, you are responsible. Full stop.

The people who should be upset are the non-culpable players and staff, and of course, the supporters. I don't like the punishment for violations in the agreement. It screws the fans. I prefer to see the guilty parties gelded.
Publicly.

I was living in Genoa in 2005 when Genoa FC were relegated two divisions for match fixing. There were literal riots in the streets, people pulled out of their cars, fires lit etc. It was chaos. Obviously there won't be the same reaction from rugby fans if PRL teams are relegated for cap cheating, but there is no way to separate punishing the fans from punishing those in charge. Because the most innocent aren't the fans of the guilty clubs, but the fans of the innocent clubs, who were robbed of possible play-off/place in europe. And also, if we see some fans of the guilty teams defend their team's actions, well then good riddance to them too.

John Mara, the owner of the New York Giants in the NFL has said repeatedly that owning a club is really a trusteeship or a stewardship. Holding the club for the benefit of the players, staff, and mostly the fans. Whether privately held or not, the fans are the ultimate shareholders. They can vote with their feet at any time. Yes, if the owners mess up, the fans are hurt. But there is a point of no return beyond which continued ownership or continued behaviours are no longer viable.

Indeed the supporters of the clubs/teams/franchises who violated the rules are the primary people to be royally done over. However, one example should be sufficient to ensure no one else is willing to run the risk. Hopefully, also, to have the rules changed to include more openness. As I have said before, one can search on line the salary status of every team in the NFL. Provided by independent auditors. This is the kind of openness which can control the salary cap violations and a whole lot more.

Maybe this was an inevitable consequence of the continuing development of the professional game? Frankly, this seems like the kind of small time crap which was rife when the sport was officially amateur. One example, sufficiently punished, should be enough.

by **LondonTiger** Sun 03 May 2015, 8:08 pm

Wray will sue if Saracens are punished.

We have seen how watertight the PRL/RFU regs are with LWs court case 3 years ago. The decision any court would have to make is to balance restraint of fair trade (which a salary cap may be) with the fact that clubs signed a contract agreeing to abide by the rules.

I am glad to hear whispers that the veil of secrecy may be lifted in future.

by SecretFly Sun 03 May 2015, 8:22 pm

I do laugh at this 'fair trade' guff in this modern Global market though. It's 'Fair' that a country can allow sweat shops to produce goods extremely cheaply, abuse their worker's rights/or no-rights in the process, and then sell into a market that could not legally allow such treatment of their workers, and couldn't ever compete with the low wages, and therefore couldn't ever compete on the cheaper price.

So one country watches it's own workers made redundant as it allows the cheap products to flood the market from the country that doesn't hold to the same principles on workers rights. Cheap products available, and the unemployed ready to gratefully buy them; with their VAT added to keep governments happy and creaming off their share.

It's a lovely Fair world we're all living in though - and getting 'fairer' by the day. But back to the rugby.

by doctor_grey Sun 03 May 2015, 8:34 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Wray will sue if Saracens are punished.

We have seen how watertight the PRL/RFU regs are with LWs court case 3 years ago. The decision any court would have to make is to balance restraint of fair trade (which a salary cap may be) with the fact that clubs signed a contract agreeing to abide by the rules.

I am glad to hear whispers that the veil of secrecy may be lifted in future.

It would be interesting to see how courts rule about a policy that the clubs had volunteered to sign up for. No one forced anyone. It was a reaction - interestingly - to the uber spending which destroyed clubs at the beginning of formal professionalism. Additionally, this is a policy common in other sports. To deny organisations whose constituents volunteer to subscribe to rules the ability to set their own rules seems legally unfair. Further, what would be the impact on the Pro 12 teams based in UK?

Just staking out some legal ground..........

by SecretFly Sun 03 May 2015, 8:36 pm

doctor_grey wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:Wray will sue if Saracens are punished.

We have seen how watertight the PRL/RFU regs are with LWs court case 3 years ago. The decision any court would have to make is to balance restraint of fair trade (which a salary cap may be) with the fact that clubs signed a contract agreeing to abide by the rules.

I am glad to hear whispers that the veil of secrecy may be lifted in future.
It would be interesting to see how courts rule about a policy that the clubs had volunteered to sign up for. No one forced anyone. It was a reaction - interestingly - to the uber spending which destroyed clubs at the beginning of formal professionalism. Additionally, this is a policy common in other sports. To deny organisations whose constituents volunteer to subscribe to rules the ability to set their own rules seems legally unfair. Further, what would be the impact on the Pro 12 teams based in UK?

Just staking out some legal ground..........

by SecretFly Sun 03 May 2015, 8:52 pm

I wonder would Wray (if his club were found to be operating outside the spirit of the cap) be prepared to play Hardball with his own PRL and threaten to pull out of the AP unless the serious ramifications of the capping system in relation to Top14 is discussed?

In other words, would he be prepared to go on the attack again just when people might expect him to take his punishment? Maybe the second suspected side might support him. The threat itself wouldn't do much damage to the League. Some might even say GO. But he could stir a negative publicity circus that mightn't go away until he got his way.

He isn't alone in England in thinking the cap is constraining AP teams in their determination to make their League at the very least the equal of the Top14. He's not alone in those feelings. He knows it too. There are lurkers who for the moment are staying quiet. I'm sure some journalists/ex-players would pop their head up and state their cases if there was enough controversy and drama.

by formerly known as Sam Sun 03 May 2015, 9:25 pm

It'd be interesting to see if the club's could challenge the cap. If it was possible you'd imagine the NFL franchises would have done so years ago. The Dallas Cowboys could have bought several Super Bowls by now. I'd certainly like to see their disclosure methods brought in. Makes it interesting as you know exactly how much spending room each team has.

The clubs in the AP won't be wanting any drastic rises in cap any time soon as they simply can't afford it. With increased TV and advertising revenues then that stance may change.

I wonder if Sarries have bartered a stay if execution for this season based on knowledge that in prior years other clubs have strayed over the cap. An amnesty and hand slapping this season with promises of strict punishments next season may have been the agreement.

by **LondonTiger** Sun 03 May 2015, 9:27 pm

I too would like us to be as open as the NFL are.

by Pot Hale Mon 04 May 2015, 2:08 am

Before Chunky gets a chance to say it, I think it's all the IRFU's fault. If they had't kept buying foreign players and paying them fortunes, none of this would have happened. Players would still be cheap as chips, and there'd be no need for a cap.

by Lowlandbrit Mon 04 May 2015, 8:33 am

formerly known as Sam wrote:It'd be interesting to see if the club's could challenge the cap. If it was possible you'd imagine the NFL franchises would have done so years ago.

The funny thing about how this is all playing out is that in America it's the players that would like to get rid of the cap, not the teams (for pretty obvious reasons if you think about it).

by **LondonTiger** Mon 04 May 2015, 8:54 am

The one major difference with the NFL that drives how they are run is that it is a closed market. The owners want what is best for the league as that in turn is best for them. A fully competitive league where everyone is brought up to the level of everyone else drives increased revenues.

The AP however is arguably just a stepping stone.

I would still like the same clarity of expenditure. It would also help fans as then we would know who was on the injury list (as they are therefore removed from the cap).

by **Rugby Fan** Mon 04 May 2015, 10:17 am

The NFL, and other US sports, are no indicator of the legality of a salary cap in British sport because we are part of the EU.

Even if it wouldn't pass a legal test in a European court, sport can still be run with a cap provided no party elects to bring a challenge.

If club owners accept the cap, then choose to break it, and receive no penalty, then it serves no purpose.

As a player, I'd be furious. Not only is it possible my club is being denied a higher league position because other clubs have over-funded squads, there's also a fair chance that many players are told their own salary must be part of a cap quota while managers are freely ignoring it elsewhere.

by doctor_grey Mon 04 May 2015, 5:54 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:The NFL, and other US sports, are no indicator of the legality of a salary cap in British sport because we are part of the EU.

yeah, about that point exactly.........

by doctor_grey Tue 05 May 2015, 12:24 am

formerly known as Sam wrote:It'd be interesting to see if the club's could challenge the cap. If it was possible you'd imagine the NFL franchises would have done so years ago. The Dallas Cowboys could have bought several Super Bowls by now. I'd certainly like to see their disclosure methods brought in. Makes it interesting as you know exactly how much spending room each team has.

Interesting you mentioned Dallas Cowboys. One of the reasons the cap was voted in was exactly because Dallas and a few other clubs were buying up the best players by spending huge sums. The league has 32 teams and the vast majority believed the cap was in the best interest of the league. Today, the overwhelming consensus is the cap restored the competitive balance which is the hallmark of the NFL and has driven the popularity to the current amazing heights. The cap is now so enshrined as a key pillar of the league success as to be unthinkable for a team, such as Dallas, to turn the other teams back to the pre-cap days. This has served as a benchmark for the other major American sports, Baseball, Basketball, and Ice Hockey. Each now has a salary cap, and wouldn't get rid of it to save their mothers.

The NFL Player's Association did drive a key requirement, however, which also makes sense. Teams cannot sit on their tv money and make profits whilst spending only a portion of the cap and fielding non-competitive teams. Each club must have an overall salary of a minimum of 89% of the cap. This ensures players get their due and the financial playing field is truly level.

Lowlandbrit wrote:
formerly known as Sam wrote:It'd be interesting to see if the club's could challenge the cap. If it was possible you'd imagine the NFL franchises would have done so years ago.
The funny thing about how this is all playing out is that in America it's the players that would like to get rid of the cap, not the teams (for pretty obvious reasons if you think about it).

I would be interested to know where your read that. As a doc who works with many NFL players here in New Jersey as well as players in the other sports, I have never heard anyone mention they want the cap eliminated. The Player's Unions in all four major sports are strong supporters.

And to a point mentioned above: How can Sarries plead a legal case against punishment for violating the cap or even against the cap itself if they volunteered to sign up for it and the rules for punishment? Bizarre.

by beshocked Tue 05 May 2015, 10:17 am

SecretFly wrote:
beshocked wrote:

Ozzy3213 at least you have some "facts" that Secretfly quite clearly lacks. Doesn't surprise me to be honest though.

The facts...whether they come from my fingers or Ozzy's has nothing to do with me or Ozzy, Shocked. Facts are facts. Whether a court finds them or fails to find them, a fact is always a fact. If a person has murdered someone but is found innocent in court, that conclusion doesn't make him innocent of the crime. The fact is still that he murdered someone. The conclusion is that he got away with it.

So you say Ozzy at least presents 'facts' unlike me who presented my speculation based on Media speculation. It doesn't matter from what source my comments come from, the overall conclusion remains the same as Ozzy's.
The FACT is sides were being investigated for suspected cap dodging.

You yourself KNOW in your own mind such an enquiry was ongoing, you just decided to play devil's advocate and constantly say 'Maybe no investigation ever happened'.

Secretfly but without evidence you cannot know for sure if someone committed a crime or not.

Let's look at the case of Meredith Kercher for example. A very high profile case but Amanda Knox and her Italian boyfriend were acquitted. Did they kill her? Perhaps they did - I don't know. The courts found them not guilty. Are they innocent or did they get away with it? I can't be sure to be honest.

Till you have all the evidence in front of you, one cannot be sure if you are right.

Saracens probably are guilty of breaking the cap but proving it needs to be done to punish them.

If Saracens are found guilty how would you punish them? What would be your verdict? I am sure there will be differing opinions on when the punishment should take place and how harsh it should be.

Personally I wouldn't be against a punishment after the RWC is found guilty of course - a deduction of 40 points perhaps a ban from the ERCC for a season. I would be against a fine though. I am sure many of you would want harsher punishments but I didn't see anyone wanting to punish cheats like Neil Back and Maradona....

If you look to punish Saracens before the RWC you are effectively cutting off your nose to spite your face - anything that hurts the RWC and England's chances should be avoided.

I get the impression that some cheating is acceptable and some is not.....

by Lowlandbrit Tue 05 May 2015, 10:21 am

doctor_grey wrote:This has served as a benchmark for the other major American sports, Baseball, Basketball, and Ice Hockey. Each now has a salary cap, and wouldn't get rid of it to save their mothers.

I would be interested to know where your read that. As a doc who works with many NFL players here in New Jersey as well as players in the other sports, I have never heard anyone mention they want the cap eliminated. The Player's Unions in all four major sports are strong supporters.

Because the cap is the thing that makes players too expensive to keep and limits their earning power (although the higher the cap is the more limited that effect is). You really don't think NFL players would prefer the practically non-existant cap (and fully guaranteed contracts) of baseball?

by SecretFly Tue 05 May 2015, 10:54 am

Shocked.... Ozzy offered you hearsay (his conversation with an insider) and I and others on this thread offered you hearsay (media rumbles). You say at least Ozzy gives 'facts' (hearsay) whilst I gave only hearsay (hearsay).

Wink

Just accept that Hearsay is all we have and most of us accept that it's probably fact. I say again - Fact doesn't need a day in court or 'proof' - all it needs is to be a fact. It doesn't matter what court says innocent or guilty - the fact is the truth. The murders themselves know they're guilty even if they are freed as innocent - the murderer knows the facts. Not everyone believes an innocent person is innocent. Not everyone believes a guilty person is guilty. But Facts always exist regardless of us being eternally uncertain of what they are.

I'm not even saying it's a Fact that Saracens are guilty. I'm not claiming that. I'm claiming as Fact that there was an investigation, that Saracens was one of those teams being investigated and that the investigation has now been stalled/delayed. All those here who claim the same could be wrong of course. But in your latest post, you agree. So we all discuss. That's what forums are for, not waiting for court 'facts' but discussing the speculation.

When you get on to punishment:
So what's your reading of this season then?
Playoffs going ahead with potentially with the wrong top four? - Winners get financially rewarded?
Europe with potentially the wrong top six? - Participants get financially rewarded? Winners get rewarded?
What do you say to those sides that might have made the cut this year had the investigation and punishment being concluded?
Do you really say to them to accept that justice for them will be delayed because the WC image requires it?
What does 'justice delayed' mean to them? - This might have been the one year when their form clicked. Next season or the one after might not go so well for any number of reasons. So they'd have lost their shot because of 'justice delayed for the good of the game'?
Step outside of Saracens and look at it from the perspective of other teams, other coaches, other groups of players and other groups of fans.

by yappysnap Tue 05 May 2015, 10:58 am

beshocked wrote:
beshocked wrote:

Personally I wouldn't be against a punishment after the RWC is found guilty of course - a deduction of 40 points perhaps a ban from the ERCC for a season. I would be against a fine though. I am sure many of you would want harsher punishments but I didn't see anyone wanting to punish cheats like Neil Back and Maradona....

If you look to punish Saracens before the RWC you are effectively cutting off your nose to spite your face - anything that hurts the RWC and England's chances should be avoided.

I get the impression that some cheating is acceptable and some is not.....

I agree Saracens and all clubs are innocent until proven guilty. BUT you can not compare a players cheating on the field to a clubs systemic, calculated and long winded cheated off the field. The two are entirely different concepts. 1 is a breach of the laws of rugby punished on the pitch or after by the commissioner. The other is breaking the rules of the league and punishable in court.

Just the same as bloodgate, taking PED's, snorting coke etc

by TJ Tue 05 May 2015, 11:31 am

Ozzy3213 wrote:
As per what I've put in bold, Walkinshaw speak with forked tongue. Gloucester, as far as I am lead to believe were one of the clubs who supported the two clubs who have broken the rules and their 'keep it quiet' stance. I guess he's been clever with his words as Mr Wray was, but the more I find out about what goes on within the PRL and it's meetings, and the behaviour of some clubs and their officials, the more I am starting to fall out of love with the professional game.

Its not the pro game thats the issue - its the PRL - one very small part of it but one that has undue influence and has managed to neuter the RFU.

by beshocked Tue 05 May 2015, 11:32 am

secretfly personally I believe more what ozzy has to say than some media rumblings. Perhaps I am wrong to do that but that's the case. If you said you spoke to a member of the PRL I would believe you but you haven't.

I have said it time and again - you need evidence. Your belief of the "truth" is simply hearsay until there is some evidence to prove that you are indeed correct.

My point is I am not going to believe there is an investigation based on some hearsay from the media but if Ozzy says so I believe him because he says he spoke to a PRL official.

You talk about "the wrong top four" - what's the right top four then? Saracens have been able to challenge the mighty money bags clubs from France - flying the flag in Europe. Someone needs to fly the flag.

You have to look at what you personally can do instead of looking at the blame game.

Too many sides use the salary cap as a scapegoat instead of looking at their own failings -certainly poorly performing clubs like Quins and Leicester who believe their current woes are not their own doing.

Instead of looking at their lack of tries, their poorly performing coaches they blame their failings on the likes of injuries and the salary cap.

It's not as straightforward as the likes of Saracens and Bath being better because they allegedly break the cap. They are better because they have more competent coaches and have better tactics.

To build a strong team you need more than just money - you need the tactics and a competent coach. You need strong team spirit and a team which will fight hard.

As for looking at the top four this season - it's done - you might call it unfair but it cannot be changed as the matches have been played. Instead any punishment has to be done at the start of next season or the one after.

Yappysnap you can compare them though.

If Maradona for example cheats in a high profile world cup - gets away with it and his team wins the world cup surely it's important?

If Neil Back cheats in a HC final gets away with it and his team wins the HC should that be swept under the carpet?

You say it's different - it's still cheating and had significant consequences.

It's okay if some people get away with cheating and some don't? Is that how you feel?

Some cheating is acceptable and some isn't?

I find it quite hypocritical of some of you to want to punish breaking of the salary cap but ignore other cheats.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 05 May 2015, 11:35 am

beshocked wrote:
SecretFly wrote:
beshocked wrote:

Ozzy3213 at least you have some "facts" that Secretfly quite clearly lacks. Doesn't surprise me to be honest though.

The facts...whether they come from my fingers or Ozzy's has nothing to do with me or Ozzy, Shocked. Facts are facts. Whether a court finds them or fails to find them, a fact is always a fact. If a person has murdered someone but is found innocent in court, that conclusion doesn't make him innocent of the crime. The fact is still that he murdered someone. The conclusion is that he got away with it.

So you say Ozzy at least presents 'facts' unlike me who presented my speculation based on Media speculation. It doesn't matter from what source my comments come from, the overall conclusion remains the same as Ozzy's.
The FACT is sides were being investigated for suspected cap dodging.

You yourself KNOW in your own mind such an enquiry was ongoing, you just decided to play devil's advocate and constantly say 'Maybe no investigation ever happened'.

Secretfly but without evidence you cannot know for sure if someone committed a crime or not.

Let's look at the case of Meredith Kercher for example. A very high profile case but Amanda Knox and her Italian boyfriend were acquitted. Did they kill her? Perhaps they did - I don't know. The courts found them not guilty. Are they innocent or did they get away with it? I can't be sure to be honest.

Till you have all the evidence in front of you, one cannot be sure if you are right.

Saracens probably are guilty of breaking the cap but proving it needs to be done to punish them.

If Saracens are found guilty how would you punish them? What would be your verdict? I am sure there will be differing opinions on when the punishment should take place and how harsh it should be.

Personally I wouldn't be against a punishment after the RWC is found guilty of course - a deduction of 40 points perhaps a ban from the ERCC for a season. I would be against a fine though. I am sure many of you would want harsher punishments but I didn't see anyone wanting to punish cheats like Neil Back and Maradona....

If you look to punish Saracens before the RWC you are effectively cutting off your nose to spite your face - anything that hurts the RWC and England's chances should be avoided.

I get the impression that some cheating is acceptable and some is not.....

You can't really compare Back knocking the ball in the scrum or whatever with breaking a spending cap. How would punishing any club who are found guilty of breaking the cap really harm the WC anyway? What happens if the punishment next season would have meant a or some different teams making it into Europe or the playoffs for the Prem? Not exactly fair which is why the situation sucks.

by SecretFly Tue 05 May 2015, 11:44 am

beshocked wrote:secretfly personally I believe more what ozzy has to say than some media rumblings. Perhaps I am wrong to do that but that's the case. If you said you spoke to a member of the PRL I would believe you but you haven't.

I and others have been saying the blasted same thing as Ozzy! We don't need your 'belief'. All we need is the media hearing it from Insiders with the PRL and spreading the word, and Ozzy - hearing it from insiders with the PRL and spreading the word.
I don't need you to believe me above Ozzy. Ozzy simply added his ten cents of 'hearsay' - which agrees with the medias version of 'hearsay'.

But I'll leave it with you.

BTW - I didn't want to say this, but I actually have a relative working with a certain English AP side. I have my sources too and he has 'opinions' too. Whistle

by TJ Tue 05 May 2015, 11:46 am

If teams have broken the salery cap they should not be in europe - as they will have cheated to get there. I am sure the teams missing out would mount a legal challenge. Cheats must not prosper from their cheating

by No 7&1/2 Tue 05 May 2015, 11:55 am

beshocked you don't agree that all cheating is the same obviously. Why shouldn't the punishment be this season? If Saracens or Bath or anyone else has a group of players that they technically 'can't afford' then they're achieved top 4 by breaking the rules; why should they benefit more?

by beshocked Tue 05 May 2015, 12:50 pm

secretfly you might have the same opinion as Ozzy but if he has insider knowledge then he quite clearly knows more than you.

About you're so called relative I don't know if you're just saying it as a joke or you genuinely know someone.

no 7 & 1/2 it's still cheating that Back got away with that had a significant impact on the match and where the HC went.

Of course it's different but it's still cheating.

It affects the WC because you effectively want to **** up two clubs who are going to be contributing a significant amount of players to England. You lead to an unwanted stand off of club vs country - you cause a massive stink and media furore a few months before the world cup that won't go away easily.

I already explained why the punishment shouldn't be this season - there is a RWC in England coming up.

Be careful what you wish for. You might revel in the destruction of Saracens and Bath at the time but it will have repercussions.

I don't think most of your desire to see the destruction of Saracens and Bath is just for the so called good of the game - I think it dents the ego of clubs like Leicester and Quins to see a team like Saracens that struggled in the amateur stage of rugby doing well in the league. I think there is a desire to see Saracens back at the bottom of the dung heap where they think they belong.

Saracens are seen as an upstart who must be eradicated at all costs.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 05 May 2015, 12:59 pm

I understand the issues it may cause for egg on face but from a players perspective does it make much difference? I may be misunderstanding this but this would be a PRL punishment rather than RFU so not sure it would lead to a club vs country?

I don't particularly care if Bath and Saracens get a hefty punishment if they are guilty as they'll have known the risks. That said one of my main gripes with this whole thing is we don't know if they have or others have, just unsettling speculation which leads to issues down the line.

If Bath are guilty (and the only ones) and end up winning the league after the final set of play off games it'll be completely unfair. They should be dealt with this season and not next.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 05 May 2015, 1:05 pm

If Leicester are guilty and and make the ERCC next year because the penalties that all PRL members signed up to are applied next season it will be completely unfair. If guilty they cheated this season and should be punished accordingly.

To argue we should sweep what may constitute massive fraud under the carpet is pathetic.

by beshocked Tue 05 May 2015, 1:06 pm

no 7 & 1/2 surely it could unstable the clubs in question. Could lead to backers abandoning the club. We don't know what the consequences are - that's the thing. Destablising clubs is not good for the players or fans. It leads to an uncertain PRL. Plenty of wranglings. Could be court cases. We just don't know.

Obviously you want to push the red button and find out. I personally don't want that to happen just before the RWC.

You say hefty punishment - what exactly would that be? I am sure there will be many differing opinions on the appropriate punishment. Also it's not the ordinary fans of these clubs who encourage these clubs to "break the cap" if they indeed have.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 05 May 2015, 1:13 pm

The punishment was agreed by all PRL members when the new process was put in place two years ago. Financial fine of (I believe but will check) double the transgression and point fines from 4 for bottom end (ie just over) up to 40 for breaking the cap by £250k and over.

ALL clubs agreed to this.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 05 May 2015, 1:14 pm

I don't know about any potential punishments they could be anything (just seen LTs post now); I wouldn't care if it were hefty in the respective of any whining afterwards. We've already seen Gloucester in the news for Galarza, personally I think they should be punished this season same as anyone breaking the cap. It's not as if the clubs are being picked on here, if they broke the cap it's deliberate or incompetant.

by Sponsored content