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?

If penalising clubs to the agreed amount destabilises them then they really should have thought about it. If they're investors are the sort to try and cheat the system and turn tails when caught and penalised they're not really the sort that should be involved.

As for the Hand of Back thing, if it was seen it would have been penalised. The rules back then were that the TMO couldn't interfere (could the AR, who were TJ back then, even?). They've changed now so that the TMO (or the ref sees it on the big screen) can go back to older offences. It probably wouldn't happen now. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he was cited for acts contrary to good sportsmanship. But all such acts cannot be overlooked after a game because there are too many that are subjective. Personally I'd love it if every act of cheating on the field earned sanction points and players got banned, but I'm aware that it is unachievable.

As for saying that people only want Saracens punished (and face destruction?!?) because they want Saracens back where they belong is pretty pathetic. I don't support any particular team but think that teams that breach collective regulation should face the set punishment.

Neil Back regrets doing what he did. He also said plenty of Leicester were not happy about what he did. I actually feel sorry for Back - he is now known as a cheat.

Still, what goes around, comes around. Leicester haven't won the Heineken Cup since and Munster have won it twice (without cheating).

beshocked wrote: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.

To summarise, the PRL are not able to police themselves. They need some other (independent) body to police them. By not having the enquiry/sanctions for those who did break your own rules means that not just 2 clubs have blackened the name of PRL/English Rugby, but all the clubs (bar Wasps & Quins) have.

Sin é wrote: Munster have won it twice (without cheating).

That's one of the problems Sin they may have not done anything wrong but by postponing investigations it leads to mud slinging.

Sin é wrote:

beshocked wrote: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.

To summarise, the PRL are not able to police themselves. They need some other (independent) body to police them. By not having the enquiry/sanctions for those who did break your own rules means that not just 2 clubs have blackened the name of PRL/English Rugby, but all the clubs (bar Wasps & Quins) have.

I should point out once again that they have only suspended the enquiry/sanctions. They will likely still have them after the world cup.

HammerofThunor wrote:If penalising clubs to the agreed amount destabilises them then they really should have thought about it. If they're investors are the sort to try and cheat the system and turn tails when caught and penalised they're not really the sort that should be involved.

As for the Hand of Back thing, if it was seen it would have been penalised.  The rules back then were that the TMO couldn't interfere (could the AR, who were TJ back then, even?).  They've changed now so that the TMO (or the ref sees it on the big screen) can go back to older offences. It probably wouldn't happen now.  In fact I wouldn't be surprised if he was cited for acts contrary to good sportsmanship. But all such acts cannot be overlooked after a game because there are too many that are subjective. Personally I'd love it if every act of cheating on the field earned sanction points and players got banned, but I'm aware that it is unachievable.

As for saying that people only want Saracens punished (and face destruction?!?) because they want Saracens back where they belong is pretty pathetic.  I don't support any particular team but think that teams that breach collective regulation should face the set punishment.

So basically what you're saying in a nutshell is basically tough luck - if it destabilises clubs you don't care. Fair enough if that's how you feel I guess.

The hand of back wasn't penalised though was it?

Not saying every person feels that way but I personally think some fans feel that way. You talk about the set punishment - we are still not even sure what the situation is .

Sin e Back says he regrets it but he still cheated - he knew what he was doing.

Neil Back's cheating was accepted. He could have been punished after footage was shown but he wasn't was he?

Maradona cheated worse but no punishment for him (different sport I know).

The Back thing is a completely separate issue and quite a long time ago now so I'll stick to the 1st point there. Why is any punishment tough luck? If there is rule breaking they (admin, accountants whoever) either knew it and were deliberately cheating or didn't know and thus weren't doing their jobs well. If any punishment sets a club back it should be a moment of 'fair enough' for everyone.

beshocked wrote:
So basically what you're saying in a nutshell is basically tough luck - if it destabilises clubs you don't care. Fair enough if that's how you feel I guess.

The hand of back wasn't penalised though was it?

Not saying every person feels that way but I personally think some fans feel that way. You talk about the set punishment - we are still not even sure what the situation is .

Sin e Back says he regrets it but he still cheated - he knew what he was doing.

Neil Back's cheating was accepted. He could have been punished after footage was shown but he wasn't was he?

Maradona cheated worse but no punishment for him (different sport I know).

So basically cheating helps win things.  If Maradona was never punished (and Henry was never punished ) then nobody should ever be punished?  Therefore, the eternal battles we all have here week in and week out about how refs interpret the game and allow some teams to 'cheat' all through a game - all that chat must now end because to say a player should have gotten a yellow or a red goes against the principle that we all overlook 'cheating' when it suits us?

So your argument is that someone else was not caught and not punished means that anyone deliberately cheating now should not be punished?

Clubs signed up to a new procedure two seasons ago. they knew the rules and they knew the punishments in place - even if you have selected to ignore that - and it is possible that some teams have deliberately gone way over what was agreed and have threatened legal action if they are given the punishment they agreed to.

This would be the same as if Back had been caught and told the ref he would bring in the lawyers if the ref penalised him. He made a pretty dumb decision, as Leicester had been under no pressure in the scrums and on that day Munster looked as if they could have played for a year without scoring a try, while if caught ROG would have slotted the 3 points and meant Munster were just a kick away from forcing extra time.



Anyone who has deliberately exceeded the cap by enough to draw the top sanctions has made a conscious decision, with full knowledge of the facts, to make these payments, conceal them and lie to the authorities when filing their salary details. That would be massive fraud and far worse than isolated onfield incidents of cheating.

The range of available punishments levied against a club are public knowledge. However I would like to point out that the London Welsh Rugby Manager responsible for the Tyson Keats fiasco was banned from all rugby activities for life. Is this why Edward Griffiths has been moved out of the club? Will he be the scapegoat if Saracens are guilty of extreme salary cap breaking?

secretfly of course cheating helps win things. Sometimes people get away with it, sometimes they don't. I am saying it is wrong to focus on one particular area - the salary cap when so many areas are ignored.

I am saying that it seems as if some cheating is acceptable and some is not. Plenty of cheating in rugby.


Londontiger I am saying it's a bit hypocritical of "fans" of clubs who have known cheaters to point the finger. It's not as if any club is the paragon of virtue. I include Saracens in that of course.

No actually if Saracens are found guilty then they should be punished. When exactly that should happen and by how much is the debatable thing.

Edward Griffiths has been moved out of Saracens for a variety of reasons I believe - though I honestly don't know if the salary cap is one of them - could well be. He might well be the scapegoat - never thought about that.

beshocked wrote:...No actually if Saracens are found guilty then they should be punished. When exactly that should happen and by how much is the debatable thing...

Why do you think the timing is a debatable issue? I don't doubt there are people who hold that view, but I can't for the life of me see why. If wrongdoing is suspected, then the course of action should be investigation and, if appropriate, punishment.

Rugby fan I have said it enough times. Do I really have to say it again?

What would be worse? Full investigation and punishment leading to a big blow out in public but being ultimately justified or a journalist sitting on proof somehow bringing it all out in public a week before the WC is due to kick off showing the Primiership winner to have cheated their way towards a title? Just wondering.

Ok shocked I'll word it this way:  Do you think Wray himself knew that a WC might interfere with an investigation and might indeed bury itself with no resolution to help keep the publicity around the coming WC from being tarnished?

Do you think Wray contemplated the WC in his planning?


But like someone said much earlier - it's hardly helped the publicity anyway to stall the investigation or punishment.  The rumours and suspicions and anger in some areas is out there.  You can't contain these things in a modern world - so why try?  Trying can only often emphasise the 'attempt to suppress' the truth.  The public only become more agitated when they think something is being buried.

no 7 & 1/2 well obviously wouldn't want a journalist wanting to bring it out just before the RWC but to be honest in that situation I would criticise the journalist harshly.

Secretfly Wray might well have but that's just speculation.

The rumours and suspicions have been around for quite a while though! Not much has changed to be honest! You say you can't contain these things - disagree. You can talk behind the scenes and find a resolution without bringing it to the public.

Perhaps this was Wray's plan but to be honest any investigation should have been resolved by now. What's the point of an investigation so close to the RWC? It's poor timing.

What extra info has the media got that we don't know?

As you have said numerous times, Saracens have been accused of breaking the cap for a long time and yet there's been no proof so far. Surely if it's so obvious there would have been a whistleblower by now.

beshocked wrote:

As you have said numerous times, Saracens have been accused of breaking the cap for a long time and yet there's been no proof so far. Surely if it's so obvious there would have been a whistleblower by now.

Speculation again of course.  Yes, you tell me why the investigation has taken so long.  I'd like to know too.  Surely the PRL have the manpower and resources to quickly get to the bottom of any accounting irregularities.  Or maybe Wray has been fighting the investigation all the way?  (We can't know as the boys haven't produced a report)  But maybe Wray has already tried all legal means to try to stall investigators or question their rights to probe into areas of his wider business interests to perhaps find player payments lurking there in 'exotic' products and formations?

We don't know.  We don't know if the PRL couldn't find evidence or if they found a ton of it.  That's why the sitting-on an investigation brings up all the speculations.  Listen back to what Ozzy says though - and you believe him.  He's suggesting there is proof of cap dodging by certain sides.

Something worth bearing in mind though , journalists love to time stories for max impact. Whole thing could get much bigger than needed. That on top of the whole unfairness if there are rule breakers.

secretfly we don't know - feel like we are going round in circles. All we can say as of now - let's see what happens.

beshocked wrote:secretfly we don't know - feel like we are going round in circles. All we can say as of now - let's see what happens.

That's had a big STOP sign put in front of it, Shocked

Let's wait yes. Whether or not we'll see what happens has yet to be decided.

not sure if this will work or not:

likely outcome

Although I really hope not ....

didn't work for me.....

hmmm - I'm obviously not as clever as I hoped ...

Yep, that worked.

ah it's working now Heaf....

Cheers - I really hope I'm wrong as this would be a dreadful state of affairs if the allegations are true

SecretFly wrote: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.

Ya, ve know about your vorthless relative and their spying against us.  Ve have been vatching zat person for a long time.  
Ve vill make zeem talk.  
Ve vill control them.  
Their only opinions are ze ones ve give to them.  
Ya, ve have vays.................

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 well obviously wouldn't want a journalist wanting to bring it out just before the RWC but to be honest in that situation I would criticise the journalist harshly.

Why? Why would you critique the journalist harshly? I really don't get your morality on this beshocked. You sound like the people in the states who didn't want news about torture coming out as it damages brand "america". If that's a legit fear, that more truth and light tarnishes something, then brand america isn't such a great thing to defend. Same way, if a club has cheated and denied other teams and fans who played by the rules, then that club, and those who would have their sins hidden away are defending something that really isn't good enough to defend.

If the RWC cannot survive the controversy of cheating in a local club league, then its not really an entity worth supporting is it? I think the RWC will be amazing, whether english clubs get the full brunt of what they deserve before or after the tournament. And I think England will get a semi-final regardless aswell.

And, not for nothing, here is the whole thing in a nutshell:
The scenario:  
You own a club and willingly violate a basic business rule to which you had agreed and which underpins the overall financial success of the league.
You know the ramifications for being caught and go ahead anyway.
Conclusion:  You are responsible for all punishments.  

In this scenario, you have screwed your non-culpable players, your staff, and fan base.  The people who administer the punishment haven't screwed anyone, unless they do less than their best.  The timing is irrelevant.  If information comes to light, the investigation should begin immediately, without political consideration.  The league will survive and likely be better for it.

What is so difficult?

By the way, this is not comparable to a knock-on.

doctor_grey wrote:By the way, this is not comparable to a knock-on.

Ah no, Watergate was basically the same as a forward pass don't ya know

wolfball wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:By the way, this is not comparable to a knock-on.

Ah no, Watergate was basically the same as a forward pass don't ya know

beshocked - you should listen to Brian Moore & Conor O'Shea on Talksport (last Sunday's podcast). Brian rips into the PRL and its governance. He says its not going to go away.

He said he was told by several people who were at the 6 hour PRL meeting that it divided into 2 factions (Saracens, Bath, Exeter, Leicester & Northampton V Quins, Wasps, Newcastle, Gloucester as far as I can remember) and one faction told the other faction if they didn't like it, they could F*** off.

http://talksport.com/full-contact
Sunday, May 3

From about halfway through.

Here is a thought. Perhaps some England players have conspired to receive illegal payments and so might be subject to bans and it has been agreed to wait till after RWC to help England.

Its a PRL agreement, not a RFU/World Rugby agreement. No reason why players should be banned from international duty - maybe from PRL  - but I suppose their punishment would be relegation from the Aviva and no Champs Cup (which would not help them in their England chances). I can't see Warren Gatland not picking George North because Northampton have been naughty!


More than likely the players who are getting most money are overseas players (or it maybe they have bigger squads than anyone else).

Sin é wrote:beshocked - you should listen to Brian Moore & Conor O'Shea on Talksport (last Sunday's podcast). Brian rips into the PRL and its governance. He says its not going to go away.

He said he was told by several people who were at the 6 hour PRL meeting that it divided into 2 factions (Saracens, Bath, Exeter, Leicester & Northampton V Quins, Wasps, Newcastle, Gloucester as far as I can remember) and one faction told the other faction if they didn't like it, they could F*** off.

http://talksport.com/full-contact
Sunday, May 3

From about halfway through.

Listened to it earlier, Sin é. A very interesting discussion indeed!

Moore claimed Bristol was also on the side of Sarries, Exeter and so on. He also claimed in was an individual who demanded that the clubs against suspending the investigation agree with the suspension, and that "if they don't like it they can **** off!" From reading another article I think the rant came from an owner of one of the top clubs and aimed at one individual who was arguing against the suspension.

Moore went further by claiming that the clubs were threatened that if they didn't agree to the suspension which was included in the package containing the ring-fencing proposal, the TV deal, etc, then they would operate a scorched earth policy (Moores description) and scrap all proposals. This threat was in addition to the threat that they would take legal action to scrap the salary cap.

Moore then put the boot in to PRL by calling into question the governance of PRL. I formed the impression that Moore either thinks those that run PRL are weak or in cahoots with the offending clubs, and would like to see them removed.

If that is all true then it's really very serious. A league can't function like that. Something has to give. Maybe McCafferty will find himself out on his ear?

It's worth a listen from 38 minutes onwards.

agh, i hate politics!

playing devils advocate, who told Moore these things? Could it be someone feeding him false information to try and improve their hand?

Moore tends to be honest, but does get on his bandwagon

After finally having the balls to investigate it is annoying that the clubs unanimously voted (the dissenters still voted in favour) to suspend the investigation till June. The Times are very clear that Wray instigated this and I guess unless he sues them for defamation/libel we can accept it is true. The four month suspension will allow any guilty teams the time they need to ensure there is no paperwork linking payments to players form 3rd parties has any link to clubs.

I shall definitely be attending this years AGM at Leicester and try and table a quaestion about all this.

LondonTiger wrote:After finally having the balls to investigate it is annoying that the clubs unanimously voted (the dissenters still voted in favour) to suspend the investigation till June. The Times are very clear that Wray instigated this and I guess unless he sues them for defamation/libel we can accept it is true. The four month suspension will allow any guilty teams the time they need to ensure there is no paperwork linking payments to players form 3rd parties has any link to clubs.

I shall definitely be attending this years AGM at Leicester and try and table a quaestion about all this.

Please feed back any info

wolfball well actually I do think that Edward Snowden did betray his country and abused his position.  It was irresponsible and unprofessional. I am sure there will be those who see him as a freedom fighter and a hero. I don't.  On the contrary I believe he is an egoistical lunatic.

If a British person working for one of the intelligence services did that I would be furious.  

USA are far from perfect as are Britain. I know that but there are far darker forces at work than the USA and Britain.

Sometimes it's best if the truth doesn't come out to protect the credibility. It's a tough balancing act - I am not against more transparency but there has to be limits and lines.


Doctor grey I disagree. There are different ways you can handle a situation. I am not against policing and punishing guilty parties but it has to be done in the right way (e.g. minimising damage).  I don't agree with your suggestion that it's best to have a potential scandal just before a RWC.

Sin e more speculation is it?


Brian Moore is a journalist these days looking to put some petrol on the fire. Not going to bother listening to what he has to say.

He claim what he wants - doesn't mean he is correct. We don't know.

The media has a habit of making things worse than they are for their own gain, especially if it's a particularly slow week. You talk about morality - you think the media has that?

Oh and all this media speculation doesn't help but I doubt that will stop the media from continuing to speculate.

'I am not against policing and punishing guilty parties but it has to be done in the right way (e.g. minimising damage). '

Still don't know how much damage it could cause to the WC. If it comes out through the media and whistle blower before the PRL have chance to do it officially it will likely cause much more damage. Obviously minimising damage to any party breaking the rules isn't a consideration.

nathan wrote:agh, i hate politics!

playing devils advocate, who told Moore these things? Could it be someone feeding him false information to try and improve their hand?

Moore tends to be honest, but does get on his bandwagon

Unfortunately, what is missing is the context or the discussions and decision to suspend.  In this whole process, there is simply too much information which is missing for us to really speak (write) intelligently.  The information which stimulated the investigation (though no one was really surprised) and the reasons for any suspension of the investigation. Exeter, Leicester, Northampton are all quoted as agreeing with Bath and Saracens the investigation should be suspended, yet those three clubs came out in favour of the cap not so long ago.   It doesn't seem logical.  We need more info.  

Clearly, if there is an investigation, then sufficient information should be shared to explain what is going on.  And we all know where there is smoke, there is almost always fire to be found.  But the reasons to suspend need to be made public, or at least some background or context for the decision.  The negative publicity will not go away easily with this, and I believe if certain owners believe they can brass it out, they are likely miscalculating.

Any organisation that prefers to operate with a code of silence opens itself to continual speculation. The salary cap is a fundamental tenant of the Premiership League. Suspending an investigation into any breach - which would undermine the seasons results - is something that should demand a transparent explanation. I'm surprised the IRB hasn't insisted that PRL completes its investigation to avoid the risk of bringing the game into disrepute. Shameful lack of governance.

no 7 & 1/2 neither do I but I don't particularly want to find out to be honest.

I agree it will cause more damage but I doubt the media or whistleblower would care about that.

Whistleblowers do generally **** the consequences.

So what do you want to happen to any party breaking the rules? You say you want punishment - what would please you?

Unfortunately I don't think some of you will be satisfied whatever the verdict ultimately in the end - except of course if Saracens are destroyed.

Journalists are there to do a job, for me as long as they comply to their own rules they are a valued part of society.

I'd like to see the punishments followed through that LT set out in the other thread, as agreed by all parties. I'll be satisfied then. I quite like Saracens so don't know why you think I only want to see them destroyed. If it comes to the worst and Saracens, Bath or whoever have broken the rules to such an extent that they are 'destroyed' (whatever that entails) so be it, they knew what they were risking when they broke the rules deliberately or incompentantly.

Any punishments should not take into account the impact on any club; they need to be fairly and impartially applied.

beshocked wrote:So what do you want to happen to any party breaking the rules? You say you want punishment - what would please you?

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/downloads/201415SalaryCapRegulations.pdf

You can see here what is written in the Salary Cap Regulations about breach penalties. Range from minor "administrative" fines to substantial points deductions.

no 7 & 1/2 journalism has it's uses but also those in media have their own selfish agenda, their own built bias, also not everything they say should be taken as gospel. If you believe everything that the media says then you are a colossal naive fool.

you say the punishment should not take into account the impact on any club I disagree. You cannot ignore the consequences of any action IMO.

Fairly and impartially applied - surely that's subjective.

Your attitude is essentially to hell with the consequences - can't say I agree with that.

Where have I said I believe everything they say? Would you agree that the rules set out are pretty clear in any potential penalties? Reading through them I would. Following that why should you take into account consequences of cheats? It would be any club who has broken the rules who have brought this on. If the rules have been broken enough for say a 40 point deduction and that'll hit the club hard, yes I have the opinion so what. Why don;t you agree with that?

I said if you believe them then you are a naive colossal fool - I don't know if you do or not.

Yes the rules are pretty clear. Take into account consequences of cheats because I don't want to see any club being eradicated.

It wouldn't just be a 40 point deduction though would it?

We don't know what the punishment will be till we know the alleged rule breaking.

No but that's the upper limit for point deductions, throw in the fines etc, just giving the worst case scenario. It wouldn't be pleasant to see a club break the rules so badly that the resulting punishment would be eradication but it would be fair. We don't know how bad it could be yet which is the problem. No transparency meaning all these ifs buts and mud slinging and also some teams may be being denied a rightful place in Europe etc.

Why should teams be allowed to get away with it? You don't like the thought of a team being punished so anything really detrimental happens to them but what about the clubs they may be denying due to their cheating? Why is it fair to turn a blind eye to help one team when they are basically trying to cheat others?