AP Clubs Vote to Block Salary Cap Investigation!

Or Saints keeping Ashton.

Though they're supposed to be cheating as well, so maybe scrapping the cap won't help!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Though they're supposed to be cheating as well, so maybe scrapping the cap won't help!

The only time I've seen that has been posted by fans.

It's all cloak and dagger. One things for sure it's a good job this wasn't dealt with quickly and out in the open otherwise it would still be rumbling along now with posters like myself throwing out accusations at everyone and the WC would be in jeapody.

doctor grey to be honest I agree with the principle of the salary cap but the thing is there's always going to be accusations of those being held back.

As I have said before - I think any found guilty should be punished but I think discussions of a restructure of the whole system need to be made.

Perhaps transparency is the way to go though one thing you haven't factored in though is that NFL has a lack of competitors compared to the AP. I am talking about like for like competitors in NFL.

Let's say hypothetically the AP became transparent - everyone's salary would become known. Surely this would encourage players to move to the Top 14 where their salaries would be unknown and could be much higher?

It's not as straightforward as needing to be competitive as a domestic league. It's need to be able to deal with the threat of the Top 14.


Jimpy it's in a great location. Easy to get to. The artificial pitch is nice. Sure there are cons but you can say that about most rugby stadiums.

As for your other comments - I agree with most of it to be fair but don't quite see it as straightforward as you're making.

no 7 & 1/2 you don't think Billy partially moved to be with his brother Mako?

Scottrf it's also been posted by Neil Fissler.

yappysnap because of course James Johnston is still at Saracens......

Why didn't Mako move the other way?

beshocked wrote:Scottrf it's also been posted by Neil Fissler.

Just seen that 'I heard', good evidence. Lose Salesi and Manoa, gain JJ and Matfield. Run a profit for many years in a row. How would he know?

This is why it needs to be investigated not brushed under the carpet.

Yeah, after all, every pair of siblings in the country do work together, how ridiculous to assume that there may be any other reason ....

So Saracens took Billy from Wasps so he could be with his brother (who was taken from Bristol)?

Beshocked, when you say "deal with the threat of the T14" what do you mean? Do you mean competing with them in Europe? If so, I really don't care, that's secondary/supplementary. If you mean them taking our players...who is going? I still don't see any major exodus. Because we may see more promising youngsters going there in the future? Possibly, but with the incentives at the moment I'm not convinced.

And you're suggesting we make a current problem worse (extending the gap between the top and bottom of the league) to potentially solve a potential problem of the future. Which in all likelihood will cause additional problem as club go further and further into debt in an attempt to compete.

If anything I would tighten the cap up.

Bambam I said it was one reason. Didn't say it was the only. It's equally ridiculous to assume the only reason someone moves to another club is money.

no 7 & 1/2 you'll have to ask the Vunipola bros yourself....

Hammerofthunor it's always taken is it? No other reason than just money?

Would Mako really have been able to gain international recognition if he stayed at Bristol?

You think players moving from Newcastle to Tigers is just about money too.


I mean competing with them in general. Not saying the players are going now but they might well in the future if England don't act.

Tighten the cap? That would just drive players to France. Just because you think everything is great now doesn't mean it will in the future.

It's about the right balance between sustainability, being commercially viable and competitive.

Money is the key beshocked. It was strange at the time as Wasps were looking to be building a good side and squad and it was unlikely that Billy was getting more money due to the cap. Seems to be becoming clearer how Saracens were able to tempt players and strengthen that squad.

Maybe you're right, clubs like Wasps may be able to keep their best players if they were able to compete on at least the same set of rules. Still another conversation as I'm sure if other clubs do want to lift or abolish the cap they'll try to get a consensus to do so rather than just cheat because they want to compete with French for the Abendanons of the world.

Mako got recognition for U20 while at Bristol so hardly off the radar. Of course it's not always about money but when one team cheats the cap and spends more than everyone else you don't know if it was infrastructure, etc. or money.

And when you say competitive, with who? Because at the minute we have 3 of the 4 top teams in the league cheating the cap. The two finalists cheating the cap the most. You seem more than happy to destroy the league as a competition in the desperate attempt from your club to cripple themselves financially to compete with the top French clubs in a different competition.

Which is fine, but don't expect many others to agree.

no 7 & 1/2 money is not everything. In 2011-12 Wasps were 11th, In the 2012-13 season when Saracens signed Billy, Sarries ended the league 1st, Wasps were 8th. It wasn't as if both sides were in similar positions.


Hammerofthunor U20s isn't the same as full England recognition though is it?

Was Mako really going to become an England player by staying at Bristol? Unlikely.

I personally don't believe that players move just for money - I don't think Strettle moved to Clermont just for money, equally don't think Auterac moved to Bath just for money.

When did I say I am more than happy to destroy the league? When did I say I want Saracens to cripple themselves financially?

So money isn't everything but we all agree it's very important otherwise there would be no reason to lift the cap. It's had a big impact, it continues to. You see when you diminish Bristol and other smaller clubs insinuating that Saracens are bigger better etc we need to take into account that Saracens Bath etc may only be there because they are cheats. How many of these players could saracens and Bath actually afford?If Sarries had been playing to the same rules whos to say Mako wouldn't be with his brother at Wasps?

You could replace Saracens with another club. Players move to other clubs and some happen to be better as acting as stepping stones to international level.

I haven't particularly belittled Bristol - I said the truth - it would be harder for Mako to get international recognition at Bristol.

If Wasps take Mullan it's fine,Leicester take numerous Newcastle players - no problem... if Saracens take Billy they are a big bad club and it's all about money, if Gloucester sign Twelvetrees it's not about money etc......

At least with Billy and Mako they moved to clubs performing better than their current ones instead of some players moving to teams not doing as well.

As I said before if Saracens and Bath are punished so be it.

If this was a normal discussion as it has been in the past then that would be a valid point. In those examples yes they're fine as they would be playing to the rules. You'll also notice no one was up in arms when you signed Billy, Ashton etc. You can play around and attract players to your hearts content when it's fair. Cheat and it's then clearly a different story. 'At least with Billy and Mako they moved to clubs performing better than their current ones instead of some players moving to teams not doing as well' - yes and we are now seeing why that would be. Not playing to the same rules.

beshocked wrote:You could replace Saracens with another club. Players move to other clubs and some happen to be better as acting as stepping stones to international level.

I haven't particularly belittled Bristol - I said the truth - it would be harder for Mako to get international recognition at Bristol.

If Wasps take Mullan it's fine,Leicester take numerous Newcastle players - no problem... if Saracens take Billy they are a big bad club and it's all about money, if Gloucester sign Twelvetrees it's not about money etc......

At least with Billy and Mako they moved to clubs performing better than their current ones instead of some players moving to teams not doing as well.

As I said before if Saracens and Bath are punished so be it.

As I understand it, the only other team now definitely in the frame is Saints.

So three of the top four from last year. Quel surprise.

beshocked wrote:

yappysnap because of course James Johnston is still at Saracens......

Yea how odd that as soon as Saracens cheating comes to light they start getting rid of players who may be breaking the cap... Really strange eh?

Strettle could well have been another one, taken from a club right when he was at his peak, and suddenly he's gone... How very very odd

Yappysnap to be honest he wasn't really performing anyway.

Johnston leaving - not the biggest surprise in the world - regardless of the alleged breaking of the cap or not.

If all the THs would fit he would probably be 4th choice.

Strettle taken at his peak?

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/matchcentre/fixtures/squads.php?player=4806&includeref=dynamic#JTf2lJB2qbfyb3Js.97

Looking at his try stats I would hardly say that.

To be honest I think he was playing his best for Quins in his first season - 2006-2007.

His bad injury vs Wales in 2008 hurt his pace IMO.

Is it that surprising Strettle has left Saracens? His opportunity to play for England again is basically over. He will get a new challenge playing for Clermont and will allow him to top up his bank account before retiring.

Again when Strettle moved to Saracens from Quins he was going from 8th in the league to 3rd.

Because Saracens were cheating probably. Money.

And I make that comment because of the selfless way Bath Saracens and the rest have helped protect the wc by making themselves look guilty as sin.

They're real Samaritans

May be zero truth in it, but I have heard that the fine levied by PRL on Saints in 13/14 season may have been the reason for exceeding the cap that year.

beshocked wrote:doctor grey to be honest I agree with the principle of the salary cap but the thing is there's always going to be accusations of those being held back.

As I have said before - I think any found guilty should be punished but I think discussions of a restructure of the whole system need to be made.

Perhaps transparency is the way to go though one thing you haven't factored in though is that NFL has a lack of competitors compared to the AP. I am talking about like for like competitors in NFL.

Let's say hypothetically the AP became transparent - everyone's salary would become known. Surely this would encourage players to move to the Top 14 where their salaries would be unknown and could be much higher?

It's not as straightforward as needing to be competitive as a domestic league. It's need to be able to deal with the threat of the Top 14.

Mate, you make a great point about having multiple competitors, which I would restate as our clubs play in multiple competitions.  In fact, one could make a cogent argument that the Premiership salary cap might not apply in a non-Premiership competition such as the Euro Rugby.  Unless, of course, the salary cap agreement applies to all Premiership club activities throughout a calendar year?  But I don't know the answer.  And for the sake of our discussion, that would throw the spanner of all spanners in our discussion.

Regarding our friends, the Top 14, and their salary cap, we know they have a cap, but I think it's fair to say some (many?) of their clubs have found creative methods to parallel contract their players and thereby stay under their cap rules whilst also compensating players outside the cap with special commercial arrangements negotiated by the clubs.  I don't think seeing the salaries of Premiership players would give negotiating advantage to the French clubs.  The reason is the player's agents freely tell clubs competing for a player the current salary and all offers, including the most speculative.  After all, the agent's job is to maximise the contracts for their players.  

I actually think transparency might exert an upward pressure on salaries within the Premiership.  If two players graded out as roughly equal but on different clubs have a discrepancy in their salaries, the lower paid player would likely push to be compensated higher.  No one ever says they are paid too much.  

And that leads to your point about raising the cap and perhaps modifying the structure.  The cap will go up simply because there is more money in the game now rather than before and that creates upward pressure.  On the other hand, I don't know the details of the cap structure in the Premiership, partially because of their lack of transparency.  So it is hard to know if a new structure is needed.  But there is no doubt the cap will rise.  Don't the clubs have a second cap-exempt player this upcoming season?  Or is it next season?  I just hope the cap increase enables all clubs to have an opportunity to compete within sensible financial limitations that are fair to all.

Thought the intension was for the cap to rise in line with collective monies, so the more money PRL brings in the cap goes up, so any increase by individual clubs can go on its infrastructure or marque players

2015/16 sees the cap rise by £500k plus an additional marquees player.

What is going to happen regarding salaries if the cap is either lifted, (or raised so high that it might as well be) is what was called the "David Beckham effect" in Premiership football.

When there are unlimted funds as there are in football what happened is this - star players at the top sides e.g. people like Beckham or Steven Gerrard, are the equivalent of marquee signings in rugby, insofar as as well as bringing their talent, they also raise the profile/status of the club, which can bring in income from indirect sources - sponsorships, shirt sales and so on.

Therefore the highest quality or famous players get very high salaries - so far no problem, however what the clubus didn't bank on was that increasing the salary of a "superstar" player would have a knock on effect right through football - if your star player is worth £200k a week, then it stands to reason (if you're a player or more likely his agent) that if I'm only half as good as a Beckham then I'm "worth" half his wages.

No-one had a problem with paying a top player top wages but what will happen is that it was also mean rhat a lot of the other players will see pay rises through nothing but what Alan Sugar described as "prune juice economics".

Premiership Football is just an Investment Portfolio for super-rich investors.  It isn't sport.  It certainly isn't fair.  It's image, brooding glossy mag pictures, merchandise, false scandal, rehearsed coach to coach seasonal in-fighting, camera-ready copyrighted gesticulations and celebratory dives, twists, turns and tongues.

It's just a product to make money for the Billionaire sponsors and owners - no need for equality of hope throughout the League ranks.  The bottom stays on the bottom and thinks of relegation and the top stays on the top where the World Market wants them to be.  "You can't be putting Man U down to the bottom??!!!!  World fans wouldn't stand for it!  We'd lose market share!"

Maybe that's where we're headed in rugby.  "Gotta keep the Big boys up for all our sakes, innit"

Seems as if approaching other clubs players before the new year is also being ignored http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3237045/Manu-Tuilagi-subject-400-000-bid-Saracens-riled-Leicester-Tigers-asked-questions-salary-cap-ruling.html

So I wonder what the 'significant concessions' are that Sarries and Bath are meant to have made ...

SecretFly wrote:Premiership Football is just an Investment Portfolio for super-rich investors.  It isn't sport.  It certainly isn't fair.  It's image, brooding glossy mag pictures, merchandise, false scandal, rehearsed coach to coach seasonal in-fighting, camera-ready copyrighted gesticulations and celebratory dives, twists, turns and tongues.

It's just a product to make money for the Billionaire sponsors and owners - no need for equality of hope throughout the League ranks.  The bottom stays on the bottom and thinks of relegation and the top stays on the top where the World Market wants them to be.  "You can't be putting Man U down to the bottom??!!!!  World fans wouldn't stand for it!  We'd lose market share!"

Maybe that's where we're headed in rugby.  "Gotta keep the Big boys up for all our sakes, innit"

You left out my biggest beef with soccer.  It's an effing soap opera.  To wit:  
This guy looked at another player's wife who was shagging the players former best friend who was miffed at not being on the front page of douche weekly and was caught speeding in his Ferrari and made a pass at the police woman who in turn went to the club to complain and was propositioned by another player who did it only because he was upset that another player makes more money and that player was then caught shagging his girlfriend's border collie.
And that was just one day in soccer.

On the other hand, I don't think we are headed that way in Rugby.  We have a few jokers in the deck who are out of control, but in general I think we are OK.  Just the growing pains of a developing professional sport.

I hope I'm wrong but by keeping a lid on this until after the world cup I think a can of worms will be opened at just the time when there will be public interest in the sport and thereby undoing the good work of the tournament.

Sadly I bet we will end up with an amnesty again like in 2008(?),everyone promises not to do it again and then we will be back here in a few years time.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I hope I'm wrong but by keeping a lid on this until after the world cup I think a can of worms will be opened at just the time when there will be public interest in the sport and thereby undoing the good work of the tournament.

Sadly I bet we will end up with an amnesty again like in 2008(?),everyone promises not to do it again and then we will be back here in a few years time.

The investigation should continue regardless of fixtures. Its a joke (nay, an embarrassment) that its been put on hold. The guilty teams should be punished severely.

Jimpy wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:I hope I'm wrong but by keeping a lid on this until after the world cup I think a can of worms will be opened at just the time when there will be public interest in the sport and thereby undoing the good work of the tournament.

Sadly I bet we will end up with an amnesty again like in 2008(?),everyone promises not to do it again and then we will be back here in a few years time.

The investigation should continue regardless of fixtures. Its a joke (nay, an embarrassment) that its been put on hold. The guilty teams should be punished severely.

Agree completely.  There will always be a reason to delay publishing the names of the clubs in violation, the scope of the violation, and the punishment.  Now it's the World Cup.  next is Euro Rugby, after that is Christmas, and so on.  

I look at it the opposite way: To me, being open with the process actually puts Rugby in a good light.  Shows our sport and our league as not tolerating soccer-type spending and behaviour, nor the shady back room nonsense and shady deals we see in soccer.  To go public when more of the global spotlight is on Rugby is almost a no-brainer.  The longer this goes on, the more of the high moral ground we lose.

Dear God, won't somebody please think of the children World Cup!

Don't think Manu Tuilagi is worth having a massive bust up with Tigers over.

He's a good player sure but he's injury prone.

I personally believe that Saracens and Bath should take their punishments after the RWC then move onto raising the cap.

Perhaps they could look at the transparency that doctor grey suggested too.

Has to be an agreement that mollifies everyone (that includes Bath and Saracens).

There are two ways you can go - isolate Bath and Saracens, make them feel more alienated than ever, shun them like lepers or all the clubs can work together to create a stronger AP which works for all (not just poorer clubs but richer ones too). I prefer the latter.

Divisions need to be mended. You rightly say that Saracens and Bath broke the rules - correct, they should be punished- correct again but then afterwards you need to look to the future.

Working with instead of against. Encourage teams to stay within the rules instead of encouraging teams to break the rules. Saracens and Bath broke the rules because they didn't agree with them. These teams points of view have to be taken into account - they cannot be ignored.

Need to find common ground with the likes of Craig and Wray.

Shunning them is exactly what I would do. Same I would do with any cheats. One of the few things going for rugby is that it has this supposed code of honour. An absolute Poopie storm was created by the blood capsule thing with Quins, which is pretty much nothing and didn't lead to a change in the laws to allow rolling subs. This is orders of magnitude worse as it has a direct impact on the team for the entire season.

Shun them. Isolate them. If they got themseleves so far into debt that the (pre-acknowledged) fine drives them under then so be it. They can reform and start at the bottom and work there way up. Cheaters shouldn't prosper (and in this case prosper seems to be to drive yourself further and further into debt)

doctor_grey wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

Bathman_in_London wrote:I hope I'm wrong but by keeping a lid on this until after the world cup I think a can of worms will be opened at just the time when there will be public interest in the sport and thereby undoing the good work of the tournament.

Sadly I bet we will end up with an amnesty again like in 2008(?),everyone promises not to do it again and then we will be back here in a few years time.

The investigation should continue regardless of fixtures. Its a joke (nay, an embarrassment) that its been put on hold. The guilty teams should be punished severely.

Agree completely.  There will always be a reason to delay publishing the names of the clubs in violation, the scope of the violation, and the punishment.  Now it's the World Cup.  next is Euro Rugby, after that is Christmas, and so on.  

I look at it the opposite way:  To me, being open with the process actually puts Rugby in a good light.  Shows our sport and our league as not tolerating soccer-type spending and behaviour, nor the shady back room nonsense and shady deals we see in soccer.  To go public when more of the global spotlight is on Rugby is almost a no-brainer.  The longer this goes on, the more of the high moral ground we lose.

I think you both misunderstand me, I think this should have been dealt with already and anyone a penny over should be punished harshly. Frankly if Bath are found guilty I will be annoyed with the management, not the system.

What I meant was, the process should have been finished over the summer, rather than dragging on into the new season.

beshocked wrote:Don't think Manu Tuilagi is worth having a massive bust up with Tigers over.

He's a good player sure but he's injury prone.

I personally believe that Saracens and Bath should take their punishments after the RWC then move onto raising the cap.

Perhaps they could look at the transparency that doctor grey suggested too.

Has to be an agreement that mollifies everyone (that includes Bath and Saracens).

There are two ways you can go - isolate Bath and Saracens, make them feel more alienated than ever, shun them like lepers or all the clubs can work together to create a stronger AP which works for all (not just poorer clubs but richer ones too). I prefer the latter.

Divisions need to be mended. You rightly say that Saracens and Bath broke the rules - correct, they should be punished- correct again but then afterwards you need to look to the future.

Working with instead of against. Encourage teams to stay within the rules instead of encouraging teams to break the rules. Saracens and Bath broke the rules because they didn't agree with them. These teams points of view have to be taken into account - they cannot be ignored.

Need to find common ground with the likes of Craig and Wray.

I'm sorry, that's rubbish.

The salary cap was introduced and the sanctions for breaking the rules were agreed. Just because two teams decided they didn't like the rules, they broke them. Their points of view are irrelevant.

They should be punished to the full extent sanctions will allow and as soon as is possible.

Do you think we should all ignore speed limits because we don't agree that 70 mph is sensible in an era of modern motoring? Do you think we should pick and choose which rules and laws we obey? That would be anarchy, and I doubt anyone with an ounce of sense would agree it was an acceptable situation.

Craig and Wray are despicable, their interests, taking into account this situation, should be ignored. If hat means the end of the clubs, tough. they should have thought about that before embarking on a course of cheating.

I agree they need to work on finding a common ground but as in most things this is likely to involve some compromises as I'm sure it did when they set the cap originally - what you can't do is agree to proceed based on the common agreement but then just ignore it if you don't like it and end up with a massive advantage over those that abide by the agreement.

Hammerofthunor

Quins haven't been shunned though.

Sure there is occasionally the mention of bloodgate but the punishment was light. A gentle slap on the wrist.

No ban from Europe, just a small ban for the player, the coach who did it has been welcomed back into the AP with open arms.

You might say that Bloodgate was nothing compared to this. Yes this is much more serious but Quins were IMO let off lightly.

You say cheats shouldn't prosper - ones like Neil Back and Maradona have. They weren't punished. They haven't been shunned.

Don't be spiteful for the sake of it.

Heaf what were those compromises?

No compromises should be made, Cheats shouldn't prosper. What other rules do Bath and Saracens not like just so we know when they like to play things stright or not? I'm guessing they're willing to ignore any.

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Don't think Manu Tuilagi is worth having a massive bust up with Tigers over.

He's a good player sure but he's injury prone.

I personally believe that Saracens and Bath should take their punishments after the RWC then move onto raising the cap.

Perhaps they could look at the transparency that doctor grey suggested too.

Has to be an agreement that mollifies everyone (that includes Bath and Saracens).

There are two ways you can go - isolate Bath and Saracens, make them feel more alienated than ever, shun them like lepers or all the clubs can work together to create a stronger AP which works for all (not just poorer clubs but richer ones too). I prefer the latter.

Divisions need to be mended. You rightly say that Saracens and Bath broke the rules - correct, they should be punished- correct again but then afterwards you need to look to the future.

Working with instead of against. Encourage teams to stay within the rules instead of encouraging teams to break the rules. Saracens and Bath broke the rules because they didn't agree with them. These teams points of view have to be taken into account - they cannot be ignored.

Need to find common ground with the likes of Craig and Wray.

I'm sorry, that's rubbish.

The salary cap was introduced and the sanctions for breaking the rules were agreed. Just because two teams decided they didn't like the rules, they broke them. Their points of view are irrelevant.

They should be punished to the full extent sanctions will allow and as soon as is possible.

Do you think we should all ignore speed limits because we don't agree that 70 mph is sensible in an era of modern motoring? Do you think we should pick and choose which rules and laws we obey? That would be anarchy, and I doubt anyone with an ounce of sense would agree it was an acceptable situation.

Craig and Wray are despicable, their interests, taking into account this situation, should be ignored. If hat means the end of the clubs, tough. they should have thought about that before embarking on a course of cheating.

If someone forces you to agree with an agreement is it right? What choice did Bath and Saracens have but to sign it?

Taking your 70mph example do you think it would be logical to have a 50mph limit on the motorway? The low salary cap could be interpreted as being a stupid law/rule.

In some countries round the world, homosexuality is deemed illegal - do you think that's right? Just because something is in the rules and law doesn't mean it's right.

I am not saying it's an acceptable situation. I am just saying it's not as black and white as you believe.

In regards to Craig and Wray both are very passionate rugby fans who have a vested interest in their own clubs. I would bet they go to more club games than any of us. You can criticise their methods and beliefs but everything is not as simplistic as you believe. Nigel Wray has helped Saracens acquire a stadium which should help them become sustainable.

BS - I don't know what the compromises might have been when they set up the original cap agreement but I'd be very surprised if someone came up with a plan and everyone just agreed straight away. Most things require some negotiation and compromise on both sides to come to an agreement - maybe some wanted the cap higher and some wanted it lower so they compromised somewhere in the middle - maybe the marquee player was added as a compromise - who knows?

My point was that they all signed up to an agreement that probably wasn't exactly what everyone wanted and contained some compromises so they could move forwards.

What is unacceptable is to sign up and then ignore the agreement and in doing so gain a massive advantage over the others that stick to it.

beshocked wrote:

Jimpy wrote:

beshocked wrote:Don't think Manu Tuilagi is worth having a massive bust up with Tigers over.

He's a good player sure but he's injury prone.

I personally believe that Saracens and Bath should take their punishments after the RWC then move onto raising the cap.

Perhaps they could look at the transparency that doctor grey suggested too.

Has to be an agreement that mollifies everyone (that includes Bath and Saracens).

There are two ways you can go - isolate Bath and Saracens, make them feel more alienated than ever, shun them like lepers or all the clubs can work together to create a stronger AP which works for all (not just poorer clubs but richer ones too). I prefer the latter.

Divisions need to be mended. You rightly say that Saracens and Bath broke the rules - correct, they should be punished- correct again but then afterwards you need to look to the future.

Working with instead of against. Encourage teams to stay within the rules instead of encouraging teams to break the rules. Saracens and Bath broke the rules because they didn't agree with them. These teams points of view have to be taken into account - they cannot be ignored.

Need to find common ground with the likes of Craig and Wray.

I'm sorry, that's rubbish.

The salary cap was introduced and the sanctions for breaking the rules were agreed. Just because two teams decided they didn't like the rules, they broke them. Their points of view are irrelevant.

They should be punished to the full extent sanctions will allow and as soon as is possible.

Do you think we should all ignore speed limits because we don't agree that 70 mph is sensible in an era of modern motoring? Do you think we should pick and choose which rules and laws we obey? That would be anarchy, and I doubt anyone with an ounce of sense would agree it was an acceptable situation.

Craig and Wray are despicable, their interests, taking into account this situation, should be ignored. If hat means the end of the clubs, tough. they should have thought about that before embarking on a course of cheating.

If someone forces you to agree with an agreement is it right? What choice did Bath and Saracens have but to sign it?

Taking your 70mph example do you think it would be logical to have a 50mph limit on the motorway? The low salary cap could be interpreted as being a stupid law/rule.

In some countries round the world, homosexuality is deemed illegal - do you think that's right? Just because something is in the rules and law doesn't mean it's right.

I am not saying it's an acceptable situation. I am just saying it's not as black and white as you believe.

In regards to Craig and Wray both are very passionate rugby fans who have a vested interest in their own clubs. I would bet they go to more club games than any of us. You can criticise their methods and beliefs but everything is not as simplistic as you believe. Nigel Wray has helped Saracens acquire a stadium which should help them become sustainable.

It very much is black and white.

They all signed up after what was a fairly protracted period of negotiation. I doubt they were the only clubs that were not entirely happy with the cap, or the rules.

It does not, in any way, shape, or form, excuse Bath or Saracens from subsequently breaking the rules.

There are no excuses. There are no mitigating circumstances. The rules are the rules, whether they agreed with them or not. I actually think a speed limit of 70 mph is inappropriate on some occasions on a NSL road. It doesn't mean I can bloody ignore the limit if i think I can get away with it. And, if I did choose to break the law and I got caught, I sure as hell would expect the sanction.

It is bile inducing (you've now introduced sexuality into the mix on top of Syrian refugees) that you continue to attempt to defend the actions of these people.

You're on a massive loser and just digging away makes you look worse.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-3237045/Manu-Tuilagi-subject-400-000-bid-Saracens-riled-Leicester-Tigers-asked-questions-salary-cap-ruling.html

Heaf you don't know though do you?

You have to look who the winners and losers are in the salary cap. The winners are LI,Newcastle,Worcester etc.

The losers are clubs like Quins,Leicester,Saints,Sarries and Bath.

The salary cap as it is = flawed. Bath and Saracens were caught breaking the rules - they should be punished but it doesn't mean the salary cap itself is right in its current form.

Jimpy how many times do I need to say I think they should be punished if found guilty?

I didn't say that I think that Bath and Saracens should escape punishment.

The rules are the rules yes but it doesn't mean every single rule is logical or thought out.

As I said what I think should happen:

Bath and Saracens punished after the RWC.

Change some of the rules.

Higher salary cap but rules in place that allow lower ranked clubs to protect their academy prospects.

Put into place a ruling that allows teams to retain their best players.

Perhaps the transparency as Grey said - would at least consider it.

Basically I want to see changes to the system that help both lower and higher ranked clubs.

Encourage strong academies and good coaching to come to the fore.

Perhaps even increase the amount of English required in the squad.

Personally I think this is a perfect time to overhaul the system.

This would mean that something positive would come out of this potential scandal.

The way to solve a problem is not bury it I agree. The way to solve a problem is to get down to the root cause. The solution IMO is not more conflict, it's working together towards a common goal.

After the RWC I hope a new better more transparent AP will emerge. An AP that works for all clubs - not just the small ones or the big ones.

The current salary cap is not a one size fits all.

BS, no I don't know if/what compromises there were and I'm not saying the current system is perfect - my only point is that if you're in a league and rules are put in place you can't just ignore them if you don't like them and, having gained a massive advantage over those that followed the rules, expect to get away with it.

If the level of overspend is as rumoured I think Sarries should be stripped of their title as they won it having gained an unfair advantage over their competitors and/or a points deduction next season as a deterrent to clubs thinking they can pick and chose which rules they will follow.  If that doesn't happen then under whatever system is put in place as sure as eggs is eggs even if they devise a new system that everyone is 100% happy with (by some miracle) at some point a club will decide they don't like some aspect and feel they can ignore it with impunity if the current cheating goes unpunished.

by the way how would you decide at what level to set the cap if for example:

8 clubs said they wanted it left at the new season level
2 said they wanted it at 7m
Sarries wanted 10m
Bath wanted 14m

just for arguments sake?