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?

Haha I love your taking of the party line.
"We cheated because we had to, no one understand us, look at from our point of view, we want to win but don't want to play by the rules, its everyone else's fault, why can't all the other teams just let us spend what we want"

There is a sport like this its called football. You may want to look into it.

Ironically, the example of Arsenal shows that even a leading football club with plenty of cash didn't do what Saracens allegedly have while being in a very similar scenario re stadium building

Manchester City and Chelsea broke the UEFA Financial Fair Play regs, and were forced to:

a) Pay large fines
b) Enter the champions league with a smaller squad.

BamBam wrote:Ironically, the example of Arsenal shows that even a leading football club with plenty of cash didn't do what Saracens allegedly have while being in a very similar scenario re stadium building

It is not the stadium building that has created the £5m+ a year losses that Saracens have operated under for the last 10 years. In fact the stadium costs will only hit the P&L gradually as the asset is depreciated.

Saracens have been making such huge losses because they they spend far more on day to day stuff (like salaries) than their rugby and commercial income. Spending yet more money they do not have (available as loans from the owners) will not change that for the better.

Could you lot please stop coming up with reasonable sporting comparisons and just accept that it is all the fault of the French and Irish, as well as the evil smaller clubs in the AP and that Saracens and Bath should be full exonerated of being cheats!

To point out the obvious, it's a spending cap not a profitability one, and as such having your own stadium is an irrelevance. Breaking rules and wanting an exemption because you haven't had a stadium is a pitiful excuse.

One day I want to see a back and forth between beshocked and Chunky Norwich

Bambam you don't understand. How long have Arsenal had their own stadium? The answer is a very long time.

As for not spending much their spending dwarfs English rugby union club.

Enforce by all means but have to look at the reasons.

The issue isn't a stadium.

The issue is that when you add up all the salaries the number is too big. That's it.

The problem is that certain clubs wont adjust because they are too focused on bullying other clubs to raise the cap rather than reduce their spending.

beshocked wrote:Bambam you don't understand. How long have Arsenal had their own stadium? The answer is a very long time.

As for not spending much their spending dwarfs English rugby union club.

Enforce by all means but have to look at the reasons.

Don't be so patronising.

Arsenal had their stadium in 2006, and I'm talking about their finances from just before then up until a couple of seasons ago.

Obviously their spending dwarves rugby union, but it does not dwarf the spending of Man Utd, Man City or Chelsea, their domestic rivals, or Real Madrid/Barcelona/Bayern Munich, their European rivals.

If they did similar to Sarries, they would have just blown all the cash they had anyway, and continued making a loss. Unfortunately for them and others, as LT mentions, clubs had a strict set of rules to follow (some may say similar to the Aviva Prem's salary cap) and clubs other than Arsenal chose to break those rules and were punished (49m fine for Man City if my initial google search is correct).

So I think you'll find, that YOU don't understand

Ozzy3213 wrote:Could you lot please stop coming up with reasonable sporting comparisons and just accept that it is all the fault of the French and Irish, as well as the evil smaller clubs in the AP and that Saracens and Bath should be full exonerated of being cheats!

Reasonable sporting comparisons? NFL with a salary cap vastly higher than that of the AP.... Arsenal with players on £100k a week....

Really comparable....

Arsenal have had their own home for years...

Never said Saracens and Bath should be exonerated.

scottfrf it's linked to sustainability.

Higher revenue means you can afford a higher salary cap. Having your own stadium helps with the issue of higher revenue.

Londontiger have you seen the revenue figures of Saracens in the last 10 years? Not great when they haven't had a stadium.

It's going up now they have their own stadium.

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2012/aug/30/breakdown

Read this article - this will explain the issue.

The difference is that Football spending limits are based on profitability. Therefore other financial factors are relevant.

Which bit of a comparison don't you understand

NFL teams spend is measured against OTHER TEAMS PLAYING IN THE NFL

Arsenal's spend is measured against OTHER TEAMS PLAYING IN THE BARCLAYS PREMIERSHIP

Saracens and Baths spend should be measured against OTHER TEAMS PLAYING IN THE AVIVA PREMIERSHIP

beshocked wrote:scottfrf it's linked to sustainability.

Higher revenue means you can afford a higher salary cap. Having your own stadium helps with the issue of higher revenue

It's a hard (in theory) limit for every club regardless of income.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 what have hollywood films got to do with anything?

Don't say ignore American football but don't promote it to the detriment of British sports.

Losing the rights to the open, losing half the rights to F1 (happened a while ago admittedly), losing half the rights to the 6 nations.

Instead of holding onto these they are promoting an American sport.

Londontiger I have said this many a time - will do it in capslock for your benefit - A CLUB NEEDS THEIR OWN STADIUM.

YOU CANNOT EXPECT A CLUB TO BE SUSTAINABLE IF THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR OWN STADIUM. A CLUB WILL MAKE MOST OF THEIR REVENUE DUE TO THE STADIUM. THEY CAN SELL BOXES, HOSPITALITY PACKAGES,SEASON TICKETS. THEY CAN HAVE A SHOP WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY VITAL TO SELL BRANDED MERCHANDISE. THEY CAN ALSO GENERATE REVENUE BY HIRING THE SPACE FOR THE LIKES OF WEDDINGS,CONFERENCES,EVENTS IN GENERAL ETC.

THERE IS ALSO THE COST OF THE STADIUM ITSELF.

YOU HAVE A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ON THIS BECAUSE LEICESTER HAVE HAD A STADIUM THEY CAN CALL THEIR OWN FOR A LONG TIME.

COMPARE THIS TO SARACENS WHO HAVE ONLY HAD THEIR STADIUM FOR A VERY SMALL PERIOD OF TIME.

You don't understand the situation - that's the problem.

Because you would want to see the BBC helping out only the British film industry surely?

BamBam wrote:

beshocked wrote:Bambam you don't understand. How long have Arsenal had their own stadium? The answer is a very long time.

As for not spending much their spending dwarfs English rugby union club.

Enforce by all means but have to look at the reasons.

Don't be so patronising.

Arsenal had their stadium in 2006, and I'm talking about their finances from just before then up until a couple of seasons ago.

Obviously their spending dwarves rugby union, but it does not dwarf the spending of Man Utd, Man City or Chelsea, their domestic rivals, or Real Madrid/Barcelona/Bayern Munich, their European rivals.

If they did similar to Sarries, they would have just blown all the cash they had anyway, and continued making a loss. Unfortunately for them and others, as LT mentions, clubs had a strict set of rules to follow (some may say similar to the Aviva Prem's salary cap) and clubs other than Arsenal chose to break those rules and were punished (49m fine for Man City if my initial google search is correct).

So I think you'll find, that YOU don't understand

Oh right so you're going to completely ignore Highbury that Arsenal had from 1913 to 2006..... Good one....

Arsenal have had benefits that Saracens never had.

You are comparing Arsenal to Saracens. Not to Man U or Man City - I don't see the relevance of them.

Saracens can start getting their finances in check now they have their own stadium.

Sorry to say but it's still you who has a lack of understanding.

Big bad Nigel Wray has done a good thing by acquiring Saracens a stadium in North London, one of the toughest places to get property.

Also you have a new CEO who is cutting spending. I know this. Don't need to believe me. I know it's happening.

There are two ways of fighting a debt - cutting your spending or making more money to pay off the debt. Saracens seem to be doing both.

It is not about debt. I don't know how much more simple I can make it.

If you had a stadium bringing in 100 billion you would still be breaking the rules.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 what have hollywood films got to do with anything?

Don't say ignore American football but don't promote it to the detriment of British sports.

Losing the rights to the open, losing half the rights to F1 (happened a while ago admittedly), losing half the rights to the 6 nations.

Instead of holding onto these they are promoting an American sport.

Londontiger I have said this many a time - will do it in capslock for your benefit - A CLUB NEEDS THEIR OWN STADIUM.

YOU CANNOT EXPECT A CLUB TO BE SUSTAINABLE IF THEY DON'T HAVE THEIR OWN STADIUM. A CLUB WILL MAKE MOST OF THEIR REVENUE DUE TO THE STADIUM. THEY CAN SELL BOXES, HOSPITALITY PACKAGES,SEASON TICKETS. THEY CAN HAVE A SHOP WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY VITAL TO SELL BRANDED MERCHANDISE. THEY CAN ALSO GENERATE REVENUE BY HIRING THE SPACE FOR THE LIKES OF WEDDINGS,CONFERENCES,EVENTS IN GENERAL ETC.

THERE IS ALSO THE COST OF THE STADIUM ITSELF.

YOU HAVE A LACK OF UNDERSTANDING ON THIS BECAUSE LEICESTER HAVE HAD A STADIUM THEY CAN CALL THEIR OWN FOR A LONG TIME.

COMPARE THIS TO SARACENS WHO HAVE ONLY HAD THEIR STADIUM FOR A VERY SMALL PERIOD OF TIME.

You don't understand the situation - that's the problem.

Because you would want to see the BBC helping out only the British film industry surely?

To be honest most of these Hollywood films and TV series are chock full of British actors anyway.

Look at Star Wars - the two main leads for the latest film will be English. Superman = English, Spiderman = English, Game of Thrones - mostly British and Irish, a British actor started it all off by headlining it, filmed in Ireland. Mad Max is English. One of the leads in the latest terminator - English.

Most big blockbusters have at least one Brit. Even the lesser known films have a lot of British and Irish talent.

I could go on but if you watched USA TV and film you would know that the British have came,saw and conquered.

Some of the top directors in hollywood - Christoper Nolan (half British/American), Ridley Scott and Matthew Vaughan - etc.

How many top English players are in the NFL?

beshocked I have you on ignore for a reason.

However see things when you are quoted - and part of me wants to say go feck yourself you patronising little twerp. But I shall avoid saying that and only think it.

I fully understand the situation at Sarries - I suspect far better than you do as an ex employee of theirs. I admire many things they are doing - but deliberately cheating a salary cap is not one of them. I mention income only because as I said I would be more accommodating of their desire to remove the cap if they could afford it without going further into debt. They cannot and they will never be able to afford it. They will never, ever bring in enough income.


That however was a side issue.

The main issue is they agreed to abide by a set of rules and deliberately broke them. As far as cheating goes this is the biggest in rugby so far. Only co-ordinated PED activity will beat this - and lets face it there are plenty who would accuse Barnet's very own Globogym as people who would push those boundaries too.

No point responding, will not see your response.

Have a good life.

Excellent because there's a few Englishmen now in the NFL. Those American films are making profits for American companies and putting pressure on British film makers. As you've pointed out theres a drain on our resources taking some quality actors like Idris Elba away from British TV shows. Shocking of the BBC etc etc. Of course the Beeb are within their rights to provide entertainment shows as well as educational etc. Complete side show to Saracens cheating though.

Scottrf wrote:It is not about debt. I don't know how much more simple I can make it.

If you had a stadium bringing in 100 billion you would still be breaking the rules.

Yes you are right they are breaking the rules and should be punished but that doesn't mean the rules in the first place shouldn't be amended.

You say it's not about debt? I thought one of the points of the cap was to encourage sustainability.

I am saying that sustainability isn't as straightforward as cutting spending.

It's about boosting revenue too.

LTs post is gone? Pretty fair point on the French situation.

beshocked wrote:

BamBam wrote:

beshocked wrote:Bambam you don't understand. How long have Arsenal had their own stadium? The answer is a very long time.

As for not spending much their spending dwarfs English rugby union club.

Enforce by all means but have to look at the reasons.

Don't be so patronising.

Arsenal had their stadium in 2006, and I'm talking about their finances from just before then up until a couple of seasons ago.

Obviously their spending dwarves rugby union, but it does not dwarf the spending of Man Utd, Man City or Chelsea, their domestic rivals, or Real Madrid/Barcelona/Bayern Munich, their European rivals.

If they did similar to Sarries, they would have just blown all the cash they had anyway, and continued making a loss. Unfortunately for them and others, as LT mentions, clubs had a strict set of rules to follow (some may say similar to the Aviva Prem's salary cap) and clubs other than Arsenal chose to break those rules and were punished (49m fine for Man City if my initial google search is correct).

So I think you'll find, that YOU don't understand

Oh right so you're going to completely ignore Highbury that Arsenal had from 1913 to 2006..... Good one....

Arsenal have had benefits that Saracens never had.

You are comparing Arsenal to Saracens. Not to Man U or Man City - I don't see the relevance of them.

Saracens can start getting their finances in check now they have their own stadium.

Sorry to say but it's still you who has a lack of understanding.

Big bad Nigel Wray has done a good thing by acquiring Saracens a stadium in North London, one of the toughest places to get property.

Also you have a new CEO who is cutting spending. I know this. Don't need to believe me. I know it's happening.

There are two ways of fighting a debt - cutting your spending or making more money to pay off the debt. Saracens seem to be doing both.

If you don't see the relevance of a team trying to build itself a new football stadium and a new rugby union stadium, I can't help you

And my understanding is that Saracens were tenants at Vicerage Road, and remain tenants of Allianz Park, as it is owned by the council? Great job there by Nige

For a side so big on controlling its finances and community, this is just great isnt it?

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/politics/saracens_slammed_for_failing_to_pay_380_000_debt_to_barnet_council_1_3715470

Pathetic joke of a club. If you're representative of their fans, I'm Frak glad I haven't been to any of their games

beshocked wrote:I am saying that sustainability isn't as straightforward as cutting spending.

I agree with that, but your earlier posts seemed to suggest you shouldn't be punished for breaking the cap, or that it wasn't your fault. If you've amended that, fine.

LondonTiger wrote:beshocked I have you on ignore for a reason.

However see things when you are quoted - and part of me wants to say go feck yourself you patronising little twerp. But I shall avoid saying that and only think it.

I fully understand the situation at Sarries - I suspect far better than you do as an ex employee of theirs. I admire many things they are doing - but deliberately cheating a salary cap is not one of them. I mention income only because as I said I would be more accommodating of their desire to remove the cap if they could afford it without going further into debt. They cannot and they will never be able to afford it. They will never, ever bring in enough income.


That however was a side issue.

The main issue is they agreed to abide by a set of rules and deliberately broke them. As far as cheating goes this is the biggest in rugby so far. Only co-ordinated PED activity will beat this - and lets face it there are plenty who would accuse Barnet's very own Globogym as people who would push those boundaries too.

No point responding, will not see your response.

Have a good life.

Londontiger shame you have me on ignore. I don't feel the same disgust for you that you have for me.

If you think I am patronisng little twerp fair enough. That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

At Saracens perhaps you know things I don't but I probably know a lot you don't.

You say they can never bring in enough income - I believe they can. Just need to tighten the belt a bit.



Oh and by the way chaps you make some very good points.

Scottrfr I have said if they are punished then so be it. The only real difference has been the timing.

BamBam wrote:

beshocked wrote:

BamBam wrote:

beshocked wrote:Bambam you don't understand. How long have Arsenal had their own stadium? The answer is a very long time.

As for not spending much their spending dwarfs English rugby union club.

Enforce by all means but have to look at the reasons.

Don't be so patronising.

Arsenal had their stadium in 2006, and I'm talking about their finances from just before then up until a couple of seasons ago.

Obviously their spending dwarves rugby union, but it does not dwarf the spending of Man Utd, Man City or Chelsea, their domestic rivals, or Real Madrid/Barcelona/Bayern Munich, their European rivals.

If they did similar to Sarries, they would have just blown all the cash they had anyway, and continued making a loss. Unfortunately for them and others, as LT mentions, clubs had a strict set of rules to follow (some may say similar to the Aviva Prem's salary cap) and clubs other than Arsenal chose to break those rules and were punished (49m fine for Man City if my initial google search is correct).

So I think you'll find, that YOU don't understand

Oh right so you're going to completely ignore Highbury that Arsenal had from 1913 to 2006..... Good one....

Arsenal have had benefits that Saracens never had.

You are comparing Arsenal to Saracens. Not to Man U or Man City - I don't see the relevance of them.

Saracens can start getting their finances in check now they have their own stadium.

Sorry to say but it's still you who has a lack of understanding.

Big bad Nigel Wray has done a good thing by acquiring Saracens a stadium in North London, one of the toughest places to get property.

Also you have a new CEO who is cutting spending. I know this. Don't need to believe me. I know it's happening.

There are two ways of fighting a debt - cutting your spending or making more money to pay off the debt. Saracens seem to be doing both.

If you don't see the relevance of a team trying to build itself a new football stadium and a new rugby union stadium, I can't help you

And my understanding is that Saracens were tenants at Vicerage Road, and remain tenants of Allianz Park, as it is owned by the council? Great job there by Nige

For a side so big on controlling its finances and community, this is just great isnt it?

http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/politics/saracens_slammed_for_failing_to_pay_380_000_debt_to_barnet_council_1_3715470

Pathetic joke of a club. If you're representative of their fans, I'm Frak glad I haven't been to any of their games

Bambam there is a big difference. Saracens have effectively been nomads through most of their existence floating from place to place. Arsenal in comparison had Highbury from 1913-2006.

Arsenal were building Emirates Stadium when they still had Highbury, Saracens had to play in about 10 different stadiums before Allianz Park was built. Arsenal have always had a home.

The situation at Allianz Park is very different to what it was at Vicarage Road.

I have not a true representative of the fans you'll be pleased to know. I am one of the more outspoken.

Oh and if you did meet me in person I am sure you would find me charming. Sure I can be a bit of a wind up merchant on here but I don't want to actually cause you distress.

Seems like I have upset Londontiger - shame really as I think he's a knowledgeable chap.

If I did not argue then the debate would end. Can't have everything nodding their heads in unison.

As for pathetic joke of a club - please add some balance, they are far from perfect, I know this but they do some good as well as some questionable acts of idiocy.

Personally I think the performance enhancing drugs rules need changing. I mean clearly there is a reason it is happening. Therefore we need to relax them to ensure this cheating doesn't happen in the future (because it won't be cheating any more).

They cheated because they wanted an advantage over their competitors it's no more complicated than that so I don't really understand the "look at the reasons". They couldn't get a good enough performing team in the rules so they cheated.

Hammerofthunor what's the reason behind the performance enhancing drugs then?

Do you think it's as staightforward as that?

Fair enough if you feel that way.

HammerofThunor wrote:Personally I think the performance enhancing drugs rules need changing. I mean clearly there is a reason it is happening. Therefore we need to relax them to ensure this cheating doesn't happen in the future (because it won't be cheating any more).

They cheated because they wanted an advantage over their competitors it's no more complicated than that so I don't really understand the "look at the reasons". They couldn't get a good enough performing team in the rules so they cheated.

Very good

Regarding PED, because they want to be better than they would be if they didn't use them. It's not complicated is it?

You tell me what legitimate issue Saracens and Bath have with the cap. Something beyond "we want to buy in better players with money we don't have, so we have a better chance of beating the best French teams"

Let's go through a things I would consider legitimate.

1) Saracens and Bath make significant profit and don't have an avenue to spend the money. The players are the draw that generate the money and they should be the ones to benefit (either by paying more or being rested more because of better cover). Doesn't apply. Both make loses, and significant ones. If they start to make a profit in the future then we can revisit this one but currently NO

2) All the teams are very near to the cap and some differentiation between the teams is reasonable. Look at the NFL with 80-100% range. If everyone is at the cap then let's raise it 20%. Not everyone is at the cap. I believe Sale are quite a bit below it, same with Falcons and Irish, not sure about the rest so NO.

3) Clubs from other nations are buying up the players they're developing. Who's gone? Can't really think of any. Bath and Saracens have taken plenty of players from other clubs though so NO

Can't think of any others. Suggestions?

It's why I think justification here is a bit pointless. The reasons aren't taken into account when giving the punishment, they're clear as day. If we want to discuss whether it was incompetance or corruption we can but if the noises coming out are about the cap being too low it seems they have deliverately cheated.

None of you clearly understand. We only agreed to the cap so the rest of the prem would abide by it and we always planned on ignoring it and spending lots of daddy's cash then try to bully the rest into shutting up. Why can't you all understand we are special. We gave you the Europe you wanted. We gave you the huge TV contracts.
Now look the other way while we spend a few more mlion in tryi g to delay this enquiry more in the hope you will all forget about what a bunch of cheating lowifebfolk we are.


Shoo

Look over there its a world cup, if you show the world out dirty hands it might sully its lustre.

Beshocked this thread is about breaking the salary cap, a figure that had been agreed so very limited room for argue. Whether that figure is correct is a different arguement, whether making enough money to pay it is another arguement. This thread a whether clubs should be investigated for breaking the cap & punished if they have.

Well surely there is nothing more to say than broadlandboy?

They should be investigated and should be punished.

Hammerofthunor you say what is the legitimate issue with the cap. It doesn't allow Saracens and Bath to spend as much as they want to.

The cap would hamper their ability to retain players. That's an issue with the cap in general.

I wouldn't say that Saracens and Bath have taken anymore players than some other club sides.

Sale are below the cap because they tried the marquee signing approach and almost got relegated in the process.

Newcastle have bought players like Powell,Cato and Saull that Saracens developed. Auterac has gone from Saracens to Bath.

The cap stopped Wasps keeping B Vunipola for instance.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The cap stopped Wasps keeping B Vunipola for instance.

Stop complaining 7&1/2! If the cap wasn't there they could have kept him and you know it. So Wasps have only themselves to blame for not breaking it.....

Guys can we please stop talking about this before we destroy the world cup?

Shush Fuzzy. Nobody knows anything about this. It hasn't been made public. It's only if it goes public that the schidt might hit the fan. But right now, not a soul knows.

beshocked wrote:doctor grey it's pretty self explanatory. NFL is an American sport. The BBC should be supporting British sports,teams and traditions - not become a cheerleader for USA.

Stability and sustainibility I can understand but success? A cap hampers those who are successful.

NFL have a massive cap. The AP cap is paltry in comparison.

You deal with a problem by going to the source. You look at the reasons why this cap violation (if it's proven) happened in the first place. It's because there are issues with the system. You can punish the teams and they probably should do but that doesn't solve the reasons why the alleged cap violation happened.

You talk about transparency -is it fair that every man and their dog can see a player's salary? Would you like it every man and their dog's salary in the country was announced?

Where do you stop?

Well, I absolutely agree for the most part the BBC should be showing more British sport and Brit focused shows.  I have no issue if they show programming which Brits want to see, such as the NFL, but Rugby Internationals, especially the 6 Nations, should come first.  

The points about comparing the NFL salary cap and the Premiership is about the structure of the cap, not the absolute cash value of the caps.  It is the structure, function, and net value to the business proposition, the Premiership, which is important.  The purpose of the cap is to maintain a sustainable business model under which all stakeholders can operate and grow together as a group.  The rule which requires all clubs to pay a minimum of 89% of the cap ensures that clubs have the financial underpinnings to compete.  If clubs cannot pay the 89%, the ownership must sell to a stronger group.  

The history of the salary cap in the 4 major North American sports is the same.  Fewer and fewer clubs were able to compete with the wealthier clubs.  In baseball, the NY Yankees and a few other clubs were starting to dominate everything, and even more damaging, they were driving player salary costs to unsustainable levels as other clubs tried to keep pace to sign good players. They were destroying baseball.   The same was happening in the other three sports as well.  Now, with strong, enforceable, though different, salary caps, all 4 sports are financially healthier than at any time in their long histories.  

A point you had made previously, with which I agree, is that spending more money does not guarantee success.  Once again, the NY Yankees are a good example.  They would make the playoffs each year, but after 2000 would rarely win the World Series.  In Ice Hockey, the NY Rangers always had one of the highest payrolls, but they haven't won the Stanley Cup since 1994.  

The salary cap actually increases the value of club management and talent personnel because the level salary playing field makes good front office people more critical than ever.  There is simply less room for failure or bad player acquisitions.  It also increases the value of good coaches.  There is no salary cap for non-playing personnel, so teams with strong management and great coaches can pay them whatever the market can handle.  

As I have said many times, the transparency is the critical aspect for success of the cap.  It is a scary thing indeed, but it has proven to be the keystone to make the salary caps successful.  As a member of the NFL Players Association told me recently, that visibility to salary information is the trade-off for making a lot of money playing professional sport.  I see no trend here in America for this to extend to other walks of life.  So it stops right there.    But no one can cheat when the salaries are visible and all club finances are subject to outside audit.  This is not to say it is impossible to completely prevent any funny business, but it makes that very difficult.  

One question you had asked is whether the salary cap punishes clubs which are more successful.  This is an interesting question.  Again, using North American sport as an example, most of the successful teams were already spending more money than many of their rivals.  So it becomes a chicken and egg thing.  Were clubs successful because they paid higher salaries?  Or were they able to pay higher salaries because they were successful.  In most cases, I suppose, it is a bit of both.  The cap limits salary spending, but not any of the other critical aspects which are necessary to build and support successful teams.  Under a cap, clubs can divert funding to support services, medical, locker room, training facilities, and so on, which are important to lure and care for good players.  You would be surprised to see how many players choose teams because they know they will be taken care of and managed better.  

However, if a club became successful whilst violating an existing salary cap, that brings us back to the present situation with Premiership Rugby.  And then the salary cap would not be punishing successful clubs, it would be reigning them back in.  

Ultimately, here we are.  We know that clubs have violated the cap, though the clubs implicated and the magnitude of the violations are still only rumour or hearsay.  As best we know, the salary cap agreement does not allow for mitigating factors.  Which means that sooner or later this will all be public information and some clubs will be punished as specified in the agreement.    If the cap goes up, then I hope the requirement for the minimum spending level (in the NFL, 89% of the cap value) is included.  This ensures financial competitiveness from bottom to top.  

As a reference, here is the salary information for the New York Giants Football club:
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/new-york-giants/cap/

And here are the gross salaries for each club in the NFL:
http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/

All that money spent on Allianz Park, and it's still a dump of a windswept ex-athletics stadium in the backside of London. As I've said before, Saracens do an awful lot for rugby in this country. they have a superb academy and engage fully with the local community to promote the sport at grass roots level. Unfortunately, whilst we should be applauding them, we can't, because they've a history of treating fans like dirt, disenfranchising potential supporters, and now, it seems, being dirty filthy cheats. The only unsurprising thing is that it was Saracens that have been found out. I mean, if you asked anyone to name a team that they thought would be most likely of cheating, I'm betting Saracens would be a popular choice. I know of very few people who have any respect for the club or its so called supporters. Rugby folk are a civilised lot in the main, but it's going to be interesting to see the reception they get at away games this season...

The football analogy is a poor one. As has been said, there is no such think as a 'free' market. If you want a market to work for the benefit of all you have to have rules which are enforced by a 'governing body'.

In this case we have a classic example of self government which only works (as in the case of the Press Complaints Authority) if the those responsible for enforcement are free from any influence and interference form those who are being policed. It seems in the case of Premiership Rugby there is no such independence and as such the whole situation becomes a complete farce.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The cap stopped Wasps keeping B Vunipola for instance.

Or Quins keeping James Johnston

-------

https://www.606v2.com/viewtopic.forum?t=60596