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?

Ironically just suppose it is Sarries or Bath etc and the punishment is a 40 point deduction - they would be better off taking that this season when they would still be safe from relegation than next when it could be a different matter.

Heaf wrote:Ironically just suppose it is Sarries or Bath etc and the punishment is a 40 point deduction - they would be better off taking that this season when they would still be safe from relegation than next when it could be a different matter.

Ring fencing at the end of next season maybe?

LondonTiger wrote:

Heaf wrote:Ironically just suppose it is Sarries or Bath etc and the punishment is a 40 point deduction - they would be better off taking that this season when they would still be safe from relegation than next when it could be a different matter.

Ring fencing at the end of next season maybe?

that would pee people off

From the Salary Cap Regulations (thanks Offload):

"The points sanctions dictated by Regulation 13.3(c) represent the starting point and the Disciplinary Panel shall have the discretion to increase or decrease (to zero if appropriate) the points sanction taking into account the following factors:
(i) Whether the Club has admitted the breach identified;
(ii) Whether the breach of the Senior Ceiling was Deliberate, Reckless, Negligent or due to a non-Negligent mistake;
(iii) Whether the Club has been found to have breached the Regulations before;
and
(iv) Whether the Club has Deliberately or Recklessly failed to co-operate during the Disciplinary Process."

My bolding shows there is wriggle room to negotiate downwards any points deduction.

The Regulations also say that any sanction will be applied in the following season if the decision (not the offence) is reached after Round 22 of the AP.

My interpretation of what little info is available is that Sarries are guilty as f**k but (under threat of legals) negotiated any points deduction downwards, possibly to zero, probably to a modest 6 points or so and that it be applied to next season (hence the suspension of the investigation so that the "decision" is formally concluded after Round 22). Ed Griffiths head rolled, and likely to be substantial financial inducements/fines, possibly including the funding of the buyout of Welsh's threatened legals.

Is that a conspiracy theory too far? We'll probably find out some of it, possibly in a couple of weeks time, but probably not all of it.

The most disturbing thing (out of many) is the apparent ability of a small faction to subsume what should have been a rubberstamping of a formalised disciplinary procedure into more far-reaching policy decisions (TV deal, relegation, expansion).

The role of the PGB should come into question now. Hitherto, I've seen it largely as a mechanism to rubberstamp PRL's policy decisions, apparently without question. It's only real teeth, though, lie with the EPS negotiations and in that respect, the requirement of RFU Council approval for the relegation/expansion proposals potentially gives a whole heap of power to the 57 old farts (or however many there are nowadays).

A complementary conspiracy theory is that a number of clubs are now actively pursuing a breakaway league (probably B&I, possibly Euro) in partnership with the Murdoch Empire, Sky being potential broadcasters and The Times the mouthpiece to destabilize the status quo.

Mick Dawson (Leinster) has said that a few of the English club owners have said to him privately that they would like to be in a league with Leinster, Munster & Ulster.

The criteria is that you need to be within 30Km of an airport and you must be within walking distance of 2 five star hotels

Connacht will have to represent Ireland in the Pro12. Chunky & Co will be able to watch all the Irish stars (unfortunately not BOD) from their preferred viewing place, their sofa.

Below is some of the blurb about what counts as salary. I would suspect that the wiggle room and the cause of Wray's comments about legally being under the cap are related to sponsorship, as those points are clearly open to interpretation.

As an aside, I actually feel that the squads of a number of squads are far more equal than they were a few seasons ago, when Sarries seemed to have a 2nd team which could have qualified for Europe. This makes me think that either they are all at it or the stricter cap enforcement is having an effect.

Any payments or benefits in kind in connection with an individual sponsorship,
endorsement, merchandising, employment or other individual arrangement between
a Player (or any Connected Party of a Player) and any Connected Party of the Club or
Third Party which the Salary Cap Manager reasonably concludes on the balance of
probabilities should not be considered Salary, having taken into account the
following factors:
(i) if the arrangement is with a Connected Party, it will be more likely to be
considered Salary;
(ii) if the arrangement was negotiated and/or intended to be entered into at
arm’s length from the Player’s Club, it will be less likely to be considered
Salary;
(iii) if the arrangement was negotiated at or around the same time as the Playing
Contract for the Player, it will be more likely to be considered Salary;
(iv) if the obligations of the Player under the arrangement in question are linked
to his Club, it will be more likely to be considered Salary;
(v) if the obligations of the Connected Party/Third Party under the arrangement
are linked to the Club, it will be more likely to be considered Salary;
(vi) if the Player will be obliged to perform his obligations under the
arrangement either wholly or partly at the direction of his Club, it will be
more likely to be considered Salary;
(vii) if the Player will be required to perform his obligations under the
arrangement in his Club’s playing kit or other Club apparel, it will be more
likely to be considered Salary;
(viii) if the remuneration under the arrangement will be payable to the as and
when services are performed by the Player for the Connected Party/Third
Party (as opposed to in a lump sum or), it will be less likely to be considered
Salary;
(ix) if the arrangement is on terms typical of commercial contracts of that type ,
it will be less likely to be considered Salary;
(x) if the term of the arrangement is different to the term of the Player’s player
contract with the Club, it will be less likely to be considered Salary;
(xi) if a servant or agent of the Player’s Club was involved, whether directly or
indirectly, in securing for the Player the benefit of the arrangement, it will be
more likely to be considered Salary;
(xii) if the Connected Party/Third Party has entered into similar arrangements
with any other Player(s) from the Player’s Club, it will be more likely to be
considered Salary;
(xiii) if the Player is to be promoted by the Connected Party/Third Party as a
sportsman who is associated with the Connected Party/Third Party as
opposed to being promoted as a Player from his Club, it will be less likely to
be considered Salary;
2014/15 Regulations – Approved by the PRL Board on 9th June 2014 Page 42 of 56
(xiv) if the arrangement is with a Connected Party to a Club sponsor, it will be
more likely to be considered Salary;
(xv) if the remuneration payable to the Player exceeds the market value of the
services to be provided by the Player pursuant to the arrangement, it will be
more likely to be considered Salary; and
(xvi) any other matter that, in the opinion of the Salary Cap Manager in his
absolute discretion, ought to be taken into account

Beshocked, you appear to be reacting against what you think is a widespread desire to give Saracens a black eye. I don't have any dislike for Saracens. I'd like them to stay a central part of the Premiership under the current ownership.

Your stance might make sense if we were in danger of succumbing to mob rule, and needed to call for cool heads. That's far from being the case. We have a salary cap rule which has been agreed by all parties. The same parties have agreed a set of punishments for anyone who breaks that rule.

No-one here knows whether there has been a breach. Everything may be above board at all clubs. There might be instances of blatant breaches, where even basic salaries sum up to a total in excess of the cap. There could be inadvertent breaches, where clubs had good reason to believe some classes of payments don't count towards the cap but they do. Or we might have cases of clubs actively looking to circumvent the cap through sleight of hand.

It's not clear to me that all cases of breaches should draw the same punishment but we've been in a similar situation with Saints, and their contract with George North. Saints should not have agreed to release North outside the period agreed by the clubs but they did and were punished. They could have been fined a sizeable sum every time they fielded North, but it was a one-off deal. If there was flexibility shown in that case, then it isn't clear to me why the same can't happen over salary cap breaches.

As it stands, we have the worst possible outcome. There is widespread suspicion of wrongdoing, and a belief that a decision was taken behind closed doors to put off any investigation to settle the matter.

If clubs are guilty of breaching the cap, then there is never going to be a good time to hear the news. The World Cup is irrelevant in that respect.  Our new European tournament is still short of sponsors. I'm sure that gaining sponsors might become more difficult if its shown that clubs have cheated, but it would be far worse to sign up sponsors now, and then drop a PR bomb in their lap later on.

Rugby fan I do think there is a desire to give Saracens a black eye. Some of the criticism of Saracens is warranted and I can understand why there would be a call for harsh punishments but there are two sides to every coin.

Of course I am sure there are plenty who want to see Nigel Wray being punished in some way or another.

I have said time and again that Saracens if found guilty should be punished. The main aspects I disagree with are when and by how much punishment they should get (this will obviously vary based on what the verdict is)

As of now we don't know all the details. A paper might say they know them all but I don't know if they are right or not.

You are right there is never a good time to hear the news but I personally think just before the RWC is worse than the alternative.

beshocked wrote: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.

Couple of things - Snowden is not a journalist. You can believe what you do about Snowden's betrayal, but it is clear that the journalists who were given Snowden's information did the public a huge service to reveal the level of government spying. You may disbelieve the media, I disbelieve governments a hell of a lot more, as they have infinitely more power to do harm. How does this relate to the matter at hand? Its a clear metaphor. Systems of power, be they governments, religions or even sporting organisations have incentives to hide their decisions as much as possible to retain and grow power. The role of journalism (not media, there is a distinction...) is to shed light on those organisations. its an eternal conflict, and while all humans including journalists have bias, they are essential to stop abuses by those in power.

You say there are lines and limits to transparency. WHO do you give the power to set those lines? Who do YOU trust enough to tell YOU what you should and should not hear about, rather then hear and learn as much as possible about something and make up your own mind? Transparency should be absolute outside of some pretty narrow guidelines (war, certain legal proceedings etc). We are talking about a bloody sporting organisation. They should be fully clear and transparent. If they are not, then they are only damaging themselves, and someone like you who defends the veil of darkness the PRL has cloaked over themselves are doing much greater damage to rugby then a journalist trying to expose corruption. Because everything that is being spoken about points to one thing, corruption. Stop defending corruption, you are better then that.

There is never a good time to sweep bad news under a carpet (other than co-inciding with a Royal birth maybe) as the stench will rise unbidden from under that carpet for months and taint all around.

The argument that suspending the investigation because it may harm the World Cup is pointless, puerile and pathetic.

beshocked, I know I keep coming back to this one - but I feel its the essential point;

If Saracens won the AP final this year - and they were subsequently found to be in breach of capping rules later in the year after the WC has come and gone, would you accept the title being taken from them as part of the punishment?

If you say 'Yes, it should be' - then who should replace them? The runner-up?

But then the runner-up was also in the final by virtue of the quirk. The quirk of delaying Justice opens up a rolling sequence of quirks and in the end, when justice is handed out (if required) then there will still be teams in AP who say that they didn't get any justice and that the delay was responsible for it.

You perhaps say that's a sacrifice they should be prepared to make for the good of the World Cup but you're not financing those clubs, or playing in them, or trying to advance your worth as a player in them or a fan.

I actually feel sorry for Phil Winstanley (PRL Rugby Director), Andrew Rogers (PRL Salary Cap manager) and heck even McGafferty.

They finally got a set of balls and properly investigate Salary Cap breaches. They are obstructed at every turn and then at the PRL General Meeting one chairman threatens to veto the new TV deals unless the clubs vote to suspend the investigation.

I am furious that my club's representative, along with every other club, was so weak as to vote for this suspension.

LondonTiger wrote:I actually feel sorry for Phil Winstanley (PRL Rugby Director), Andrew Rogers (PRL Salary Cap manager) and heck even McGafferty.

They finally got a set of balls and properly investigate Salary Cap breaches. They are obstructed at every turn and then at the PRL General Meeting one chairman threatens to veto the new TV deals unless the clubs vote to suspend the investigation.

I am furious that my club's representative, along with every other club, was so weak as to vote for this suspension.

Hmmm, that's a new bit for me.  Never heard that bit until now.  The plot thickens.

LondonTiger wrote:I actually feel sorry for Phil Winstanley (PRL Rugby Director), Andrew Rogers (PRL Salary Cap manager) and heck even McGafferty.

They finally got a set of balls and properly investigate Salary Cap breaches. They are obstructed at every turn and then at the PRL General Meeting one chairman threatens to veto the new TV deals unless the clubs vote to suspend the investigation.

I am furious that my club's representative, along with every other club, was so weak as to vote for this suspension.

I don't Quins or Wasps went along with it.

Sin é wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I actually feel sorry for Phil Winstanley (PRL Rugby Director), Andrew Rogers (PRL Salary Cap manager) and heck even McGafferty.

They finally got a set of balls and properly investigate Salary Cap breaches. They are obstructed at every turn and then at the PRL General Meeting one chairman threatens to veto the new TV deals unless the clubs vote to suspend the investigation.

I am furious that my club's representative, along with every other club, was so weak as to vote for this suspension.

I don't Quins or Wasps went along with it.

It was a unanimous vote - the Times stated yesterday that they were wrong to initially state these two voted against the suspension. Quins and Wasps supposedly dissented but when it came to the vote voted in favour. The meeting was just meant to rubber stamp the arrangements for next season but was hijacked.

wolfball did the general public a huge service? Sharing sensitive documents? Something that shouldn't have been put in the public domain was put in the put in the public domain. We don't know all the consequences to that leak - perhaps it led to our spies being in danger, perhaps it cost the tax payer a significant sum.

I personally don't think the media did a public service.

Equally I don't think the media did the England team any good by publicly humiliating them in 2011.

Does privacy mean nothing these days in your opinion?

Journalists have their own agenda. It's naive to believe that any secrets or dirt found is generally part of some noble goal.


Londontiger pointless,puerile and pathetic? How so? Do you have a desire to damage the RWC?

Sounds like you've believed all the "facts" the media have fed you - hook line and sinker......


The reason why there is furore is because the media have whipped up a storm based primarily on speculation. It's because it makes a good story.

Secretfly I don't know what would be a "fair" punishment. That's very subjective surely till we know all the "facts" instead of just speculation.

I am pretty sure it must be quite complicated.

LondonTiger wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:I actually feel sorry for Phil Winstanley (PRL Rugby Director), Andrew Rogers (PRL Salary Cap manager) and heck even McGafferty.

They finally got a set of balls and properly investigate Salary Cap breaches. They are obstructed at every turn and then at the PRL General Meeting one chairman threatens to veto the new TV deals unless the clubs vote to suspend the investigation.

I am furious that my club's representative, along with every other club, was so weak as to vote for this suspension.

I don't Quins or Wasps went along with it.

It was a unanimous vote - the Times stated yesterday that they were wrong to initially state these two voted against the suspension. Quins and Wasps supposedly dissented but when it came to the vote voted in favour. The meeting was just meant to rubber stamp the arrangements for next season but was hijacked.

Why didn't they just call this one chairman's bluff and invite him to veto?  The entire tidal wave of pressure and media blame for any meltdown of confidence in AP or subsequent convoluted messing with TV deals would all come down on this one chairman's head.  Plus - the investigation would go ahead and it would quickly become known that said chairman not only tried to sidestep the capping rules but also tried to blackmail the other partners in the PRL to shut-up about it.

This particular Chairman seems to love a gamble of 'who blinks first'.  It seems he has it down to a fine art.  It seems he's won yet again on that score.  All it needs is for it to fail one time and he's on his knees.  I don't know what he's got but it seems he has more influence than is naturally due a lone Chairman of a single club.  Maybe he has other dirt that he's holding close to his chest that allows him to win all these dice toss games?

beshocked wrote:wolfball did the general public a huge service? Sharing sensitive documents?  Something that shouldn't have been put in the public domain was put in the put in the public domain. We don't know all the consequences to that leak - perhaps it led to our spies being in danger, perhaps it cost the tax payer a significant sum.

I personally don't think the media did a public service.

Equally I don't think the media did the England team any good by publicly humiliating them in 2011.

Does privacy mean nothing these days in your opinion?

Journalists have their own agenda. It's naive to believe that any secrets or dirt found is generally part of some noble goal.


Londontiger pointless,puerile and pathetic? How so? Do you have a desire to damage the RWC?

Sounds like you've believed all the "facts" the media have fed you - hook line and sinker......


The reason why there is furore is because the media have whipped up a storm based primarily on speculation. It's because it makes a good story.

Secretfly I don't know what would be a "fair" punishment. That's very subjective surely till we know all the "facts" instead of just speculation.

I am pretty sure it must be quite complicated.

I'm not convinced it will damage the world cup, beshocked, but if it will damage it then the crass attempt at brushing all this under the carpet will likely cause more harm than it would had they been honest. If the manner in which this has been handled by the offending clubs is true, then their behaviour has been nothing less than despicable.

Munchkin you don't know whether it would or not. No one knows. Of there is the possiblility that it would damage the world cup. Personally I don't think the risk is worth it.

beshocked wrote:Munchkin you don't know whether it would or not. No one knows. Of there is the possiblility that it would damage the world cup. Personally I don't think the risk is worth it.

You're right, I don't, but that's missing the point. The point is that the behaviour of the offending clubs, and the attempt to brush it all under the carpet, will have a likely more damaging effect on the AP and the RWC, than it would have if they had have dealt with this issue openly and honestly. There is a level of corruption there, and that needs to be dealt with sharply.

beshocked wrote: perhaps it led to our spies being in danger

Your spies...

beshocked wrote: Does privacy mean nothing these days in your opinion?

I value privacy incredibly. You are making a silly argument. If you are in the public eye, you are by definition news. Not everything about you of course - Politician's children should be off limits ethically but not legally for journalists for example. If england didn't want a media storm in 2011, maybe they should have acted like adults. Hardly the media's fault - if there was nothing to report, then there would have been no media storm.

beshocked wrote:Journalists have their own agenda. It's naive to believe that any secrets or dirt found is generally part of some noble goal.

What is the agenda?

Sensationalism? - often yes
Ideology? - sometimes, depends on the source
Truth? - Nearly always

Would you agree there is a difference between an investigative journalist and paparazzi? Or are they all just media to you? How much should be swept under the rug? If the captain of a national sport's team was, god forbid, a pedophile abusing children, and a journalist finds out about it the day before the world cup final, what should they do? Sit on it? To protect the team, world cup etc? And if no, you say that should be exposed, well how do you tell the difference? Where is the "line" you would draw between whats allowed be exposed or not? And who would you allow DECIDE FOR YOU on that line? Who is a big enough man/woman to tell you what you can hear?

Again who knows? It's the media who can create the biggest ****storm - if proceedings can be dealt behind closed doors with limited media interruption then a resolution might be found.

The whole ERCC dealings were done behind closed doors - it might be a similar thing that happens this time.

beshocked wrote:Again who knows? It's the media who can create the biggest ****storm - if proceedings can be dealt behind closed doors with limited media interruption then a resolution might be found.

The whole ERCC dealings were done behind closed doors - it might be a similar thing that happens this time.

It isn't the media that has caused this ****storm. It is the two clubs being investigated, and their behaviour in attempting to conceal their breaking the rules that has caused this ****storm. This ****storm, in part, has been created because the offending clubs demanded proceedings behind closed doors not be made public, and under threat of legal action.

wolfball wrote:

beshocked wrote: perhaps it led to our spies being in danger

Your spies...

beshocked wrote: Does privacy mean nothing these days in your opinion?

I value privacy incredibly. You are making a silly argument. If you are in the public eye, you are by definition news. Not everything about you of course - Politician's children should be off limits ethically but not legally for journalists for example. If england didn't want a media storm in 2011, maybe they should have acted like adults. Hardly the media's fault - if there was nothing to report, then there would have been no media storm.

beshocked wrote:Journalists have their own agenda. It's naive to believe that any secrets or dirt found is generally part of some noble goal.

What is the agenda?

Sensationalism? - often yes
Ideology? - sometimes, depends on the source
Truth? - Nearly always

Would you agree there is a difference between an investigative journalist and paparazzi? Or are they all just media to you? How much should be swept under the rug? If the captain of a national sport's team was, god forbid, a pedophile abusing children, and a journalist finds out about it the day before the world cup final, what should they do? Sit on it? To protect the team, world cup etc? And if no, you say that should be exposed, well how do you tell the difference? Where is the "line" you would draw between whats allowed be exposed or not? And who would you allow DECIDE FOR YOU on that line? Who is a big enough man/woman to tell you what you can hear?

When I say ours I mean the British and American spies. It was not in the national interest to rip into the England team mercilessly but the British media led the charge.

You talk about the truth - that's not straightforward. To be honest I don't think there is much difference between invesigative journalist and paparazzi - both are looking for a story/picture for their own selfish ends.

E.g. I didn't agree with the media attacking Prince Harry when he was enjoying himself in Las Vegas. They encroached on his privacy. Prince Harry is of course a stalwart supporter of rugby union.

Very difficult to know where the line is agreed.

How would exposing frauds and cheats damage the World Cup.

Oh I missed what sounds like a good Spy debate! Oh damn!

Too late now to get involved - I'd need to do too much reading back and I'm too lazy to indulge

You cause a massive **** storm just before the RWC. You stoke up bad blood between the clubs. You damage the stability of clubs who will be contributing significant proportions of the England side. Discussion in the RWC might be dominated by goings on in the domestic game. You stoke up bad blood between the fans. All fueled by the media of course who don't care about the damage done.

beshocked wrote: To be honest I don't think there is much difference between invesigative journalist and paparazzi - both are looking for a story/picture for their own selfish ends.

Very difficult to know where the line is agreed.

Ok, well we'll have to agree to disagree. I think your view on freedom of the press is reprehensible and of great risk and damage to the whole concept of an open polity. You obviously would prefer to trust those in power, making decisions in dark, smoke-filled rooms, then those who (whatever their agenda) seek to challenge power (I exaggerate but only slightly).

I know where the line is. I decide the line. And the only way for me to decide MY line, is knowing all the facts. Having corruption exposed wide and far. Full freedom of the press and full freedom of speech. You wish to trust the very people who have most to gain by concealing facts from you. It's properly weird that people can think like that, but so it goes.

And to go back to your previous equivalence on the hand of Back and PRL salary cap shenanigans... One is cheating, one is corruption. One is an event, the other is a rot which needs to be rooted out and exposed. Anyways, that's all I will say on it, though its sad that by defending corruption, I think you have burned alot of goodwill on here from people who thought you were a passionate supporter who goes a bit overboard at times, but basically a good guy.

SecretFly wrote:

Why didn't they just call this one chairman's bluff and invite him to veto?  

Because they are cowards. Perhaps because they have something to hide. We have no idea because it is all confidential. So instead we get sleaze and rumour.

If the World Cup can only survive by allowing cheats, fraudsters and bullies to get away with it - well it is not worth keeping.

Sleaze and rumour - media's favourite past time.......

wolfball actually what I want is balance. I don't believe everything I read in the newspaper. Got to take it with a pinch of salt.

You say open press - I don't want Prince Harry's reputation to be dragged through the mud because he happens to want to spend some of his free time in Las Vegas. He wasn't doing any harm yet he was humiliated. That was wrong IMO. Prince Harry is not perfect but I think he does a lot of good.

It's an example of "free" press as you call it. The press flexing their muscles.

Oh I find it amusing that you talk about burning goodwill. Saying I am not a good guy etc because I have a different perspective. I don't see myself as a good guy or a bad guy - just someone who is different to the norm.

What corruption are you accusing me of defending?

I have said time and again that I have nothing against punishing Saracens if they are found guilty yet we are where we are - little to no fact, just speculation.

There is plenty of grey in this world of ours.

Saracens have been accused of being guilty before the verdict has been read.

When I have all the "facts" then I might well agree with you.

Why is there no fact?

Because some sleazy chairmen decided on a cover up.

That is the one fact we have.

You of course have repeatedly agreed with the cover up.

beshocked wrote:You cause a massive **** storm just before the RWC. You stoke up bad blood between the clubs. You damage the stability of clubs who will be contributing significant proportions of the England side. Discussion in the RWC might be dominated by goings on in the domestic game. You stoke up bad blood between the fans. All fueled by the media of course who don't care about the damage done.

Not sure if this is aimed at me? Anyway, I will reply

I didn't cause any of those things (If you actually meant me).

I would doubt very much that discussions in the RWC will be dominated by goings on in the AP. This sounds more like a Wray tactic to shut people about his actions.

It is Wray that has caused any damage. It is he that is the offender. Not the victim.

Did the offending clubs care about any potential damage being done when they broke the rules?

Londontiger A resolution needs to be found on the PRL's terms, not on the media's terms. As I have said time and again I am not against an investigation and indeed a punishment but there is a more appropriate time and place for this IMO.

Meanwhile clubs reputations are being tarnished and we risk unfairly rewarding teams. We also risk damaging the world cup with allegations hanging in the air. Still think suspending investigations is short sighted. Prove them innocemt or guilty and move on.

Its too late now - covering up is worse than coming out and putting your hands up. I'm really surprised at how how the PRL are at PR. This just won't go away - its of the public (rugby supporting public) interest.

I'd imagine Aviva are not too happy about being associated with such an organisation that is totally devoid of integrity.

This scandal will only affect rugby in England. The Rugby world cup was meant to be a showcase of the Olympian spirit and a mechanism to attract more general public interest in rugby. The PRL obtained the rights from the RFU to organise their own league. Pity the PRL didn't realise that with rights, they have responsibilities which they have failed to take on.

Not wxactly a cover up yet Sin.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not wxactly a cover up yet Sin.

It is - the PRL meeting was in February. The damage is done at this stage. No one believes that the enquiry is just being delayed. Legal action was threatened. That threat is still there.

Interesting comments from a Derek McGrath interview of a few years back of the early days of the ERC.

A fledgling new body had to establish some credibility and muscle, which meant quite a few trips up the steps of the high courts, but they stood their ground and laid down some markers. Tough for you that you didn’t get your southern hemisphere player registered three weeks out from the start of the competition; tough for you if the disciplinary verdict didn’t go in your favour; at least it was transparent and fair. From that foundation, more business partners came on board.

The way the PRL are heading, no sponsor will want to have anything to do with them.

I think most people believe its postponed you really shouldnt try to paint something thats not there.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think most people believe its postponed you really shouldnt try to paint something thats not there.

I might believe them if they gave an indication as to why its not being conducted now or even if they actually said when it is postponed to.

But then it seems that Saracens have threatened legal action if they do go ahead which would suggest to me that they are guilty anyway. Do you think the guilty clubs are going to put their hands up and admit guilt? If so, when?

I think it ll come out in the wash after the wc. May not be anthing may be slightly over may be massive cheating. To claim definitive knowledge of what the outcome will be is silly right now. Plenty to criticise about this without the need to make it seem like its done and dusted. Have a go at the prl but dont pretend you know something you dont.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think it ll come out in the wash after the wc. May not be anthing may be slightly over may be massive cheating. To claim definitive knowledge of what the outcome will be is silly right now. Plenty to criticise about this without the need to make it seem like its done and dusted. Have a go at the prl but dont pretend you know something you dont.

I don't see how there would be a problem if everything is honky doory and above board. Why threaten legal action if you have nothing to hide. Why postpone the investigation anyway? By not acting swiftly people conclude that there is something seriously wrong. Why allow that speculation to happen if there is nothing wrong?

Conor O'Shea has been speaking up a fair bit about wanting to expose the cheats, not to mention the Players Union who have likened it to being a drugs cheat.

Theres many reasons and they dont all result from cheating as you must realise. It ll come out when the investigation is completed. Speculate away its the result of this postponement dont pretend the result is here yet. At least try.

Munchkin wrote:

beshocked wrote:Munchkin you don't know whether it would or not. No one knows. Of there is the possiblility that it would damage the world cup. Personally I don't think the risk is worth it.

You're right, I don't, but that's missing the point. The point is that the behaviour of the offending clubs, and the attempt to brush it all under the carpet, will have a likely more damaging effect on the AP and the RWC, than it would have if they had have dealt with this issue openly and honestly. There is a level of corruption there, and that needs to be dealt with sharply.

Times like this you wish there was a like button.

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

Yes, we know, under deep cover.  code name: n-i-g-e-l--w-r-a-y

beshocked wrote: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.

I never said it's best to have a scandal before the RWC.  I said the timing vis-a-vis the RWC is irrelevant.  Consequences flow from the time the conclusions are known.  But that is not the scandal.  

The scandal is now because the obvious presumption of guilt AND presumption of a cover-up.  If made public immediately, the scandal is only about guilt (if so found).  And it might have abated by the time the RWC rolls around.    

By the way, mate, I agree about Snowdon.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

beshocked wrote:Munchkin you don't know whether it would or not. No one knows. Of there is the possiblility that it would damage the world cup. Personally I don't think the risk is worth it.

You're right, I don't, but that's missing the point. The point is that the behaviour of the offending clubs, and the attempt to brush it all under the carpet, will have a likely more damaging effect on the AP and the RWC, than it would have if they had have dealt with this issue openly and honestly. There is a level of corruption there, and that needs to be dealt with sharply.

Times like this you wish there was a like button.

Thankyou

I think corruption is a bit harsh. If its proven they have made payments to a 3rd party to achieve/ win something e.g. a referee, then thats corruption. As far as I am aware, if it is Saracens and Bath, its not like they have won more than Harlequins or Gloucester over the last few years as far as trophies are concerned. Hardly a great advantage gained. I would say it is more an embarrassment to everyone involved than corruption.

For all we know, the levels the offending teams are making payments at could be under next years new cap anyway.

Doesn't matter a jot Michael.