AP Clubs Vote to Block Salary Cap Investigation!

First topic message reminder :

Or Saints keeping Ashton.

Heaf wrote:

Munchkin wrote:You probably already know this: According to the Rugby Paper, Craig is to step down as VC at PRL, whatever punishment is due the offending clubs wont be voted on until the end of year, and there will be no action taken against any club unless ALL vote in favour. Will Turkeys vote for Christmas? Will they be allowed?

This is an online petition calling for action against the offending clubs: DontSweepItUnderTheCarpet.

Is that correct? - if so it's incredibly stupid ... how can you enforce a set of rules if the offenders know they can veto any punishment?

It's what the Rugby Paper reported, but I don't know if that means the offending clubs get a vote, or if it's all the other clubs. They did emphasise 'ALL', but maybe just for effect.

LondonTiger wrote:

Heaf wrote:

Munchkin wrote:You probably already know this: According to the Rugby Paper, Craig is to step down as VC at PRL, whatever punishment is due the offending clubs wont be voted on until the end of year, and there will be no action taken against any club unless ALL vote in favour. Will Turkeys vote for Christmas? Will they be allowed?

This is an online petition calling for action against the offending clubs: DontSweepItUnderTheCarpet.

Is that correct? - if so it's incredibly stupid ... how can you enforce a set of rules if the offenders know they can veto any punishment?

Actually it is not true.

All clubs already agreed what the punishments should be.

What is happening however is that a minority are threatening not to sign the commercial agreements unless the other clubs agree to suspend the investigation. The decision to suspend that investigation has to be unanimous.  The investigation is now complete - so the offending parties want all other teams to agree to no penalty. If they agree then the offending parties sign the commercial deals and those clubs who survive from the income rugby generates will get the cash they so badly need to pay salaries etc.

OK thanks LT - so it just looks like blackmail then ...

Munchkin

Depends what you think I am defending.

I can't defend the breaking of the rules. I agree with most of you that Saracens and Bath should be punished.

You don't understand about the £40m debt situation - don't pretend you do. I have explained many a time about the stadium situation that most of you wouldn't understand because none of your teams have been in that situation.

Bambam I could spin it on it's head and say why should Newcastle get their own way? Are they superior to Saracens?

Scottrf the idea would be to help teams generate more revenue. Saracens have been hamstrung by not having their own stadium for years. Now they have their own stadium - the increase in revenue will helpfully go up and up.

Talking about bullies.....

It's not bullying if you get your own way but if I get mine......

Your way or the highway?

I am trying to come up with a solution that is a compromise. If you don't compromise then surely you're bullying me by imposing your will on me?

It's okay for the little clubs to gang up and bully the bigger clubs but if it's the other way round.....

Newcastle shouldn't be able to dictate terms. It should be a vote across all teams.

The problem is BS that I don't think you've explained how letting some teams spend a lot more than others is somehow a fairer system ... we've already seen how Bath plundered all the best talent from LI and even if you accept the players may not only have moved for the money if Bath had kept within the cap would they have been able to take all those players?

Haha, how could Newcastle possibly be dictating terms in that scenario! They wouldn't be getting any advantage themselves, it would just mean Newcastle having the chance to compete with a team who (apologies Newcastle fans) are far superior to themselves on the field

Also, I think I've said this before, but I don't support any of the club teams in the Aviva, I just watch whatever is shown on TV and have never attended a Premiership game, so please don't mistake my opinion as favouring a side I support

beshocked wrote:Munchkin

Depends what you think I am defending.

I can't defend the breaking of the rules. I agree with most of you that Saracens and Bath should be punished.

You don't understand about the £40m debt situation - don't pretend you do. I have explained many a time about the stadium situation that most of you wouldn't understand because none of your teams have been in that situation.

Bambam I could spin it on it's head and say why should Newcastle get their own way? Are they superior to Saracens?

You've explained it, but I don't accept your take on it.

Right, I'm out of here. For now anyway. I just thought the Rugby Paper article was interesting, and worth posting about (sorry, I should have provided the link).



Here, just in case you want to sign this petition: DontBrushItUnderTheCarpet

Heaf I am not advocating a plundering of LI's talent.

I am saying there should be rules in place to protect LI's talent but also accomodate the views of the bigger clubs.

I want rules to work for the small and big clubs.

When does this thread go BOOM?

Aha, it just did

all thoise pages lost - so do we need a recap?

beshocked wrote:Heaf I am not advocating a plundering of LI's talent.

I am saying there should be rules in place to protect LI's talent but also accomodate the views of the bigger clubs.

I want rules to work for the small and big clubs.

Their needs are contradictory, shocked.

Why should a big club get to stay big with sympathetic rules designed to ease their path(accommodate them) and why should a small club have to stay small?

It just seems that your philosophy - and you're entitled to it - is that there should be a League division whereby big clubs stay big and grow worldwide brand identities to keep themselves big or bigger still - and a lower tier (within the same league) where teams get to have less money, less players (that they can keep!) and more time to spend trying to keep away from the relegation zone.

beshocked wrote:Heaf I am not advocating a plundering of LI's talent.

I am saying there should be rules in place to protect LI's talent but also accomodate the views of the bigger clubs.

I want rules to work for the small and big clubs.

Think thats what we all want beshocked.

I think most of the rest of us disagree fundamentally that the best way to go about that is to increase the salary cap to allow the big clubs to spend more without breaking any rules, while the small clubs are unable to spend any more.

If after the World Cup its announced that every team can sign another marquee player, but only at a salary of 500k, is it likely that Newcastle, Worcester and London Irish will do so? What about Bath and Saracens? Even Leicester as LT says, are apparently struggling to fill the current marquee slot they have available

beshocked wrote:Fuzzy Dunlop

Surely you can see the make up of the Leicester squad to see how the salary cap has hurt Leicester. From a predominantly English club to one of the highest foreign numbers in the league. Inability to hold onto players like Waldrom,Salvi,Parling,Castro,Ford and Twelvetrees - the whole squad has a completely different look.

Leicester did very well to come 3rd in the league position but the salary cap IMO has definitely hurt them.

You clearly didn't read my post then. They didn't lose those players because of the cap. You could make the cap as high as you want and they still wouldn't have been able to find the money*. I know this seems alien to a Saracens fan but they have to actually generate the cash to spend and any money spent on inflated salaries is less money to spend on improving facilities. This coming season we have already reached the point where Leicester might not be spending all they are entitled to spend. The cap allows them to stay competitive in a world with mega-rich clubs that would otherwise blow them out of the water, they are definitely not 'losers' in a salary capped league - far from it.

*Also, a bit off-topic but Ford is the only one on your list that they really fought to keep.

Scottrf wrote:
Saints have been implicated by one man. None of the print press did the same. Can we stop repeating it as fact?

The source for Saints breaking the cap is exactly the same as the source of information regarding Saracens and Bath. If this isn't enough for you, fine - that's perfectly reasonable, but you have to then apply the same reasoning when discussing Saracens and Bath. I imagine the reason he didn't include it in his Rugby Paper writings is that the breach was small enough to be fairly inconsequential.

beshocked wrote:Heaf I am not advocating a plundering of LI's talent.
I am saying there should be rules in place to protect LI's talent but also accomodate the views of the bigger clubs.
I want rules to work for the small and big clubs.

The rules as they were worked perfectly well for all the clubs - otherwise they would not have agreed to them in the first place - by unilaterally deciding to delberately break the rules "because we can" Saracens and Bath have cheated and should be punished appropriately for it.

And by the way Saracens are not a big club - they are a club with a rich backer - to paraphrase Danny Baker, "they're a middle sized club who won the lottery".

SecretFly wrote:

beshocked wrote:Heaf I am not advocating a plundering of LI's talent.

I am saying there should be rules in place to protect LI's talent but also accomodate the views of the bigger clubs.

I want rules to work for the small and big clubs.

Their needs are contradictory, shocked.

Why should a big club get to stay big with sympathetic rules designed to ease their path(accommodate them) and why should a small club have to stay small?

It just seems that your philosophy - and you're entitled to it - is that there should be a League division whereby big clubs stay big and grow worldwide brand identities to keep themselves big or bigger still - and a lower tier (within the same league) where teams get to have less money, less players (that they can keep!) and more time to spend trying to keep away from the relegation zone.

Hi SF, I hear what you are saying and I am not defending this 2 teir mentality that you mention - but such a situation does exist already, isnt that the situation with Connaught largely considered a development squad by the IRFU but still competing as a full participant in the Pro12..

Connacht were tagged a development side, but not any longer. The IRFU have gave them extra funding, and it's hoped they will be competing with the best of us.
Last season Connacht were pushing Scarlets for 6th place in Pro12, and a place in the Champions Cup. Just fell short, if a 7 point difference is short, unfortunately.

beshocked wrote:Heaf I am not advocating a plundering of LI's talent.

I am saying there should be rules in place to protect LI's talent but also accomodate the views of the bigger clubs.

I want rules to work for the small and big clubs.

I get that BS but I just don't see how those sort of rules would work - especially as I have no confidence that certain clubs would stick to them if it didn't suit them ...

beshocked wrote:Munchkin

Depends what you think I am defending.

I can't defend the breaking of the rules. I agree with most of you that Saracens and Bath should be punished.

You don't understand about the £40m debt situation - don't pretend you do. I have explained many a time about the stadium situation that most of you wouldn't understand because none of your teams have been in that situation.

Bambam I could spin it on it's head and say why should Newcastle get their own way? Are they superior to Saracens?

Scottrf the idea would be to help teams generate more revenue. Saracens have been hamstrung by not having their own stadium for years. Now they have their own stadium - the increase in revenue will helpfully go up and up.

Talking about bullies.....

It's not bullying if you get your own way but if I get mine......

Your way or the highway?

I am trying to come up with a solution that is a compromise. If you don't compromise then surely you're bullying me by imposing your will on me?

It's okay for the little clubs to gang up and bully the bigger clubs but if it's the other way round.....

Frankly, a sewer rat is morally superior to Saracens right now.

Irish Londoner wrote:

beshocked wrote:Heaf I am not advocating a plundering of LI's talent.
I am saying there should be rules in place to protect LI's talent but also accomodate the views of the bigger clubs.
I want rules to work for the small and big clubs.

The rules as they were worked perfectly well for all the clubs - otherwise they would not have agreed to them in the first place - by unilaterally deciding to delberately break the rules "because we can" Saracens and Bath have cheated and should be punished appropriately for it.

And by the way Saracens are not a big club - they are a club with a rich backer - to paraphrase Danny Baker, "they're a middle sized club who won the lottery".

Sounds about right.

I'm amazed this is still going. I'm amazed some are defending the indefensible. I'm not amazed some clubs are threatening to not sign the new tv deal if they not allowed to do what they want
I'm frankly shocked that two cheating selfish owners think they can bully the whole league and everyone should be happy
The sooner they are forced out the better.
And beshocked, saying that all the other clubs shouldn't be allowed to bully bath and Saracens is quite frankly laughable. They arnt bullying just asking that they stick to the very same rules as everyone else in the league agreed to. Including them.

Irish londoner well personally I don't think the current rules are working.

Depends what you think a "big" club means. Sure there are different interpretations.

carpet baboon

It's not bullying when you can strong arm me into doing what you want?


Can you not see that it's all about you getting your own way?

It's about every club wanting what's best for them.

How can two clubs bully the whole league when they are being ganged upon?

Bath and Saracens had no choice but to sign the agreement did they?

Your way or the highway springs to mind.

Do you seriously expect Saracens and Bath to just take the beating that the smaller clubs want to give them?

Let's look at a hypothetical situation.

Let's say I am the Saracens chairman and I come to you and say I will make a compromise.

I will accept a £3 million fine, a 40 point deduction as in the agreement. Also transparency in terms of salaries as suggested by Doctor Grey.

In return I would want a raise in the cap and I will sign the TV deals and work towards more co operation.

Would you take my offer?

What would satisfy you?

Why don't you make a profit with your current spending before raising the spending cap? Sell some tickets outside of groupon deals for example.

So BS would you agree Saracens are trying to strong arm everyone else in the league?

Except the punishment YOU agreed to. No it's. No buts. No only if you.

Scottrf by the way when I say raise the cap only to what Saracens are allegedly breaking it by. As for a making a profit with current spending I agree Saracens need to do that.

My point is that an agreement will be only made if a compromise is reached.

Saracens and Bath have done wrong I am not denying that and deserve punishment but how the whole issue is resolved will be important.

carpet baboon wrote:So BS would you agree Saracens are trying to strong arm everyone else in the league?

Well no because they are not getting their own way.

carpet baboon if Saracens and Bath take the 40 point ban and the £3 million fine will that satisfy you as that's per the agreement?

Or do you want more?

The punishments are already set out. Any change to the cap should be voted on simple really.

40 point deduction and £3m fine is the agreed punishment for being £1m over the cap for one season, so I imagine that would satisfy most. We would, of course, expect the same punishment to be applied for every season (if there are any) the cap was broken.

beshocked wrote:Scottrf by the way when I say raise the cap only to what Saracens are allegedly breaking it by. As for a making a profit with current spending I agree Saracens need to do that.

My point is that an agreement will be only made if a compromise is reached.

Saracens and Bath have done wrong I am not denying that and deserve punishment but how the whole issue is resolved will be important.

Raise the cap to Saracens's spending? Forget the other teams. Does that really seem fair?

BS that's all I want no more no less.

Fuzzy Dunlop surely that 2nd part is not in the rules. Oh and you don't think that Saracens and Bath would want to fight that?

Oh right no 7 & 1/2 so that vote - would be no - so essentially stick to the flawed status quo then?

scottrf it's not necessarily about fairness. It's about coming to an agreement.

Some clubs want to spend more, some want to spend less. A compromise must be reached.

Or is it your belief that everything should be done as you want it to be done?

Your way or the highway.

I don't know beshocked presumably you'd have some discussion around what to raise it then a demographic vote; the only fair way. Already seeing a rise and change this year so obviously the clubs are open to some to and fro.

Presumably they voted on it the first time around and agreed the current rules based a democratic vote - Sarries and Bath may not have liked the final outcome but that's democracy. How is what you are saying now any different? Say they have another vote and the majority say to leave it as is would you still see that as unfair? Is democracy only fair if you get what you want?

beshocked wrote:Or is it your belief that everything should be done as you want it to be done?

Your way or the highway.

No, I didn't have any say in the current cap. Setting it at the exact amount Saracens spent doesn't seem like democracy or a compromise to me.

beshocked wrote:Fuzzy Dunlop surely that 2nd part is not in the rules. Oh and you don't think that Saracens and Bath would want to fight that?

I was mainly thinking of the financial penalty multiplying and not the points deduction tbh. However I've actually bothered to read the salary cap regs now and thankfully there are guidelines for this. The rules are (as you'd expect) fairly vague and allow for a lot of wiggle room at the discretion of the disciplinary panel. The fine can go up to £10 for each £1 over the cap if there have been breaches in both the 2 previous years and the points deduction can be increased or decreased as the panel see fit, accounting for:

(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. (Edit: this one could be interesting if the 'disciplinary process' includes the PRL shareholders meetings  )

And of course Saracens and Bath would want to fight that. They would presumably want to fight any punishment, or we wouldn't be in the situation we are apparently in now.


Edit: Just to clarify, the reason why I'm talking about this is that you have asked quite a few times exactly what punishments people want to see given to the teams breaking the cap. The fact is it's impossible to say really because we know very little about the report's findings and don't even know if the cap breaking was restricted to one year. If it was one year, then absolutely £3m fine and 40 points would be right (it is what was agreed, after all). Any more than that and I would expect the penalties to increase accordingly.

Heaf I am only giving another point of view. Obviously Saracens and Bath do not agree. You might say what they have done is wrong and I understand that but if you give no ground whatsoever then how will this be resolved? I am not claiming that you let them get away scot free. A punishment is needed because that's in the rules but how you deal with this - well that's the important thing.

Fuzzy Dunlop the thing is if you want to stop Saracens and Bath to fight then you need to come to some sort of compromise whether you like it or not if you want to come to a swift and harmonious conclusion.

scottrf perhaps not but if you want this to end relatively amicably it has to be done.

You talk about democracy, even in the EU everyone fights their own corner. Britain for example very much likes to do what they want regardless of whether the other countries in the EU agree. Now my point is that there are some who would approve of Britain protecting their own interests. You can talk about the rights and wrongs but that's the way it is.

Saracens and Bath deserve a punishment - I have made that clear a few times but how you deal with them is important.

Now I understand you don't want to be too lenient as that would set a bad example and mean that clubs would be allowed to get away with it. I don't want that either.

I am not suggesting Saracens and Bath escape punishment, I suggest that they do not continue to be isolated from the other clubs they disagree with. It's about tolerance (something I guess I don't do enough of!).

If we on this forum can't come up with a working solution I doubt the club men can!

Why on earth would you give any ground if they cheated?

A completely separate conversation is about whether to raise the cap further yes. Yes the 'solution' is for the clubs to get together and decide and vote.

So your answer is No to compromise, No to a solution, No to a salary cap increase and yet you wonder why there hasn't been a resolution....

If you don't make some sort of compromise there won't be a resolution.

You're not offering solutions, you're offering more demands. By doing that Saracens and Bath will dig their heels in.

The clubs bar Saracens and Bath would vote against a salary cap increase and nothing will have changed, nothing will have improve. There will still be the flaws in the system.

The current system needs reformation.

Struggling to see why you think that beshocked. No compromise around any punishment certainly. Why would there be?

'A completely separate conversation is about whether to raise the cap further yes. Yes the 'solution' is for the clubs to get together and decide and vote.'

Those sentences though are the key to moving forward. Democracy beshocked, democracy.

Depends what the punishment is in the end - if it's £3 million, 40 points deduction then that's fine.

The way to move forward is completely ignore any grievances that might be had with the current system is it?

I am asking for reformation of the current system. Is that so unreasonable?

Your way or the highway - that's what it sounds like you want.

Work with me, not against me - that's what I would say.

If you can't make a compromise with me then surely Bath/Saracens will struggle to do so with the other clubs.

No the way to move forward is to discuss it and vote. That would be working together wouldn't it? What would you define as compromise?

It's not moving forward if nothing changes. It's not moving forward if there is not an agreement on how things should proceed.

Compromise would be punishment for Saracens and Bath, transparency in the salaries to prevent cheating in the future, a harsher penalty in the future for any subsequent breaking of the rules from these two clubs. In return the cap would be set to the level that Saracens and Bath have been breaking it.

Also other laws would be brought in to protect academy players to prevent the likes of Bath signing young LI players and Saracens signing Billy Vunipola - based on salary. A transparent salary would surely prevent this?

Perhaps a ruling that certain players can only be signed if they are on the same salary or less at their new club.

The reason why I suggest this - it gives something that Bath and Saracens would want but also something that helps other clubs too.

beshocked wrote:It's not moving forward if nothing changes. It's not moving forward if there is not an agreement on how things should proceed.

Compromise would be punishment for Saracens and Bath, transparency in the salaries to prevent cheating in the future, a harsher penalty in the future for any subsequent breaking of the rules from these two clubs. In return the cap would be set to the level that Saracens and Bath have been breaking it.

Also other laws would be brought in to protect academy players to prevent the likes of Bath signing young LI players and Saracens signing Billy Vunipola - based on salary. A transparent salary would surely prevent this?

Perhaps a ruling that certain players can only be signed if they are on the same salary or less at their new club.

The reason why I suggest this - it gives something that Bath and Saracens would want but also something that helps other clubs too.

Reasonable stuff, shocked - but that highlighted bit - they'd simply break that rule too in time, if needed.  AND...they'd come back with the same excuse.  

"The rule needs changing. It's constraining our ability to grow our club, it's not allowing us to offer competitive salaries to considered best players - who then go off and play for rival clubs in France.  We refuse to cooperate with any rules unless this one is modified or dropped."

Back to square one.  Power uses power to gain more power - again.

beshocked wrote:It's not moving forward if nothing changes. It's not moving forward if there is not an agreement on how things should proceed.

Compromise would be punishment for Saracens and Bath, transparency in the salaries to prevent cheating in the future, a harsher penalty in the future for any subsequent breaking of the rules from these two clubs. In return the cap would be set to the level that Saracens and Bath have been breaking it.

Also other laws would be brought in to protect academy players to prevent the likes of Bath signing young LI players and Saracens signing Billy Vunipola - based on salary. A transparent salary would surely prevent this?

Perhaps a ruling that certain players can only be signed if they are on the same salary or less at their new club.

The reason why I suggest this - it gives something that Bath and Saracens would want but also something that helps other clubs too.

But I'm saying the exact same thing really. All these things could be brought to the table then voted on.

Does anyone actually believe that increasing the cap will actually make the AP clubs any stronger?

After all the England selection policy keeps the bulk of the English players here already.

Now someone is bound to say clubs coudl hire quality overseas players - but that was what the Marquee slot(s) were designed for. And look how effective that has been.

All an increase in salary cap would do is to increase the wages paid to english players (not bad as such). As most clubs are not being run as ego trip by rich men, that would mean that only those clubs with sugar daddies and no regard to the actual health of their club would have the top English players.


What could this lead to?


Overall the strength of the league falls, it is less attractive to sponsors and TV and the income falls.

Bath and Saracens try to create a european superleague featuring them, Leinster, Ulster, Glasgow, Cardiff, and 6 French clubs.

All the Unions refuse to back such a competition and World Rugby do not sanction it. Invited clubs stay in their current competition, leaving the English pair out on a limb.

The SA backers of Saracens realise they will never get their money back, walk away with the club going bust.

Bruce Craig continues backing Bath - however the real reason for his smug smirk every time the cameras pan to him on matchday is finally revealed when the camera pans down to show him being fellated by Roman Abramovich's daughter Sofia. Two days later Craig dies from polonium poisoning and Bath are declared bankrupt.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But I'm saying the exact same thing really. All these things could be brought to the table then voted on.

It's clear he doesn't want a vote unless the decision is that Saracens can have their every wish though. He wants the cap to be upped - not a vote if the cap should be changed. He wants the cap to be raised to what Saracens spend - not a vote on the level of the cap.

LondonTiger wrote:All an increase in salary cap would do is to increase the wages paid to english players (not bad as such). As most clubs are not being run as ego trip by rich men, that would mean that only those clubs with sugar daddies and no regard to the actual health of their club would have the top English players.

It will mean an increase in the cost of my season ticket too, I'm sure.

Secretfly

Perhaps they would - but we wouldn't know for sure but then you could take more serious measures.

Where's that quote from?

The argument against Saracens and Bath is the belief that Saracens and Bath will continue to break the rules. If they continue to break the rules then you could take harsher measures.

Draw a line in the sand. Come to an agreement, work towards more transparency and accountability.

Ultimately work together. Not make it us and them.

It shouldn't be X vs Y, it should be X and Y working together.

no 7 & 1/2 you're not saying the same thing. You want the same system in place.

Londontiger yes I do because English clubs need to compete with the Top 14, not just the rest of the AP.

The reformation of the current system I think would strengthen the AP yes if the right decisions were made.


scottrf I am not asking for every wish to be granted.

I am sure that if Saracens and Bath got their own way there would be no punishment.

That's an interesting position BS ... so if someone is arrested for fraud for example they could negotiate to only accept their sentence if there was agreement to change the law so their fraudulent behaviour was made legal in the future - even though the majority may not want the change ... hmmm.  

Surely if only 2 out of 12 clubs (approx 17%) want a change then like it or not Sarries and Bath would have to comply - we have a government that lots of people didn't vote for - isn't that how democracy works? You talk about negotiation, compromise, coming to an agreement etc - do you not think a process like that was followed in the first case? The fact that some teams were not happy with the level set doesn't mean the process was unfair necessarily - I imagine some teams would have liked a lower level and some a higher level - you can't please everyone, but they all signed up to it ultimately.

Having said that there have already been changes for next season so some compromise has presumably already been made - I doubt many teams will be able to afford 2 marquee players for example?

You said they should be punished, but after that get their every wish. You've said it multiple times. Raise the cap to what you want. Not vote on whether the cap should be changed. Don't act like you want a democratic process.