AP Clubs Vote to Block Salary Cap Investigation!

First topic message reminder :

Or Saints keeping Ashton.

no 7 & 1/2 I found that a bit rich you say I am blindly supporting Saracens when you have no evidence to back up some of your claims of bribery and blackmail.

It's details that you lack. Add some evidence to your claims then you'll start to make sense.

Not sure I said Newcastle by themselves but they could potentially force Saracens and Bath to do what they want with strength in numbers yes.

When have I taken joy in this salary cap mess?

carpet baboon wrote:In 7 to 14 days time all the proof, evidence and facts will be out in the he open.
That is all
And people will be amazed

And until then, lets not get too carried away.

carpet baboon wrote:In 7 to 14 days time all the proof, evidence and facts will be out in the he open.
That is all
And people will be amazed

Fair enough.

Falcons and Sale have followed Wasps example and released a statement to their fans saying they weren't investigated and didn't break the cap.

In 7 to 14 days will anything happen? Doesn't seem like a good time to release bad news, the league is back into full gear and the European fixtures would be imminent. Doing the release of anything in two weeks time puts it front and centre Europe wide!

Neil Fissler posted a little bit of McCafferty's conference call to select media outlets regarding the cap discussions:



Apparently it went on like that for 26 minutes! Read it two or three times, it still wont actually say anything.

yappysnap wrote:Falcons and Sale have followed Wasps example and released a statement to their fans saying they weren't investigated and didn't break the cap.

That loophole wasn't covered by the lawyers obviously.
"None of you can ever say which sides were investigated!"


...okay, but we can all individually say it wasn't us

yappysnap wrote:Falcons and Sale have followed Wasps example and released a statement to their fans saying they weren't investigated and didn't break the cap.

Excellent. I hope this will be closely followed by the rest. Won't be breaking any confidentiality agreements either.

Make the worms squirm

Interesting reading Brian Moores comments on these statements too. He thinks they're a good thing (obviously) but it leaves the guilty clubs in a quandary, they can either stay silent and so incriminate themselves with the lack of denial. Or they can come out with a statement like the other clubs, which if they do will be an actual out right lie, the first time any of the clubs have lied rather then obfuscated about all this, that might change things.

Ben Kay was saying on rugby tonight that these statements are a bit strange as none of the teams would know if they were being investigated as that is the procedure of the investigations.

How much of that is true I don't know.

Well I suppose they weren't investigated, as far as they're aware. Since the cheating clubs that forced this settlement legally disagreed with the PRL, so they must have known.  Also, there may have been openness at their meetings because of these disagreements.

But they would know and they do. And too many of them are peed off. As are the players. And the players union. And parts of the RFU.
All know what they know
And are not happy.
So drip drip drip information, untill the non disclosure agreement it worthless.

Investigated clubs would have known they were on the list considering they'd be asked to furnish information...or they'd be getting more phone calls than regularly from 'head office, or they'd hear from sources close to them that probes were coming from other sources into activities they are linked to.

In order to investigate you have to seek information and ask questions.  Of course they'd know they were being investigated - they'd certainly know whether or not they were asked to give a settlement payment to the PRL to reach the confidentiality agreement.

nathan wrote:Ben Kay was saying on rugby tonight that these statements are a bit strange as none of the teams would know if they were being investigated as that is the procedure of the investigations.

How much of that is true I don't know.

The investigators would be asking for documentation from clubs etc. Any club being investigated would be aware and "assisting" with enquiries.

Would it not work in a similar way to financial audits in any other organisation in that auditors will come in at the end of each year regardless of if you are being investigated. So they would collect all information then anyway.

The clubs that were being investigated more robustly....came to an 'agreement'. Even in a usual audit style investigation, the clubs that haven't been involved in an 'argreement' - because of conflict of opinions on what a cap means - will know they haven't been involved in that process.

Ah yes, the penny drops!

Interesting tweet from Brian Moore this morning: Told @premrugby power split (NB not clubs investigated) Wasps/Quin/Glo/LI 1 side- New/Sale/Wor middle - Bath/Bris/Sar/Lei/Ntpn/Exe - other

Full credit to Moore for being one of the few to actively shed light on this farce. I'm slightly surprised by some of the teams that are siding with the cheats, megalomaniacs, tosspots, alleged few.

Let's say that is true: Tigers we know sided with the other two over Manu contract, Bristol makes sense as they're also trying their very best to buy success, Saints were reported a while back to have also breached the cap (marginally), Exeter is the one that surprises me.

Well the 'other' side all have rich owners or at least have more firepower than other teams.

I'd like to know who is telling Moore and Fissler these titbits, just anonymously leak the whole story please!

Leak the lotin one go it becomes obvious who is the leak, and they loose there job.
Little bits at a time it's harder to prove.

carpet baboon you have to ask yourself the question -

Why would the person who made the leak lose their job?

bathman in london why leak it anonymously? Got something to hide?

Because they wouldn't want to be reprimanded for breaking a confidential agreement?

Leaking something that is locked up under a confidentiality agreement would inevitably lead to job loss if they are party to that agreement!

Interesting to see that the "smaller" clubs (Newcastle/Sale/Wuss) are on middle ground .. maybe they aren't bullying poor old Saracens and Bath after all.

I am surprised at Exeter though, a side which seems to have made it to where they are completely by the book, with youth, is suddenly supporting cheats

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because they wouldn't want to be reprimanded for breaking a confidential agreement?

Exactly. They want to do something morally questionable and potentially illegal but don't want to be caught.

Whistleblowing is morally a grey area and that's why not many would want to admit to it.

Two whistleblowers who did admit to their whistleblowing are Edward Snowden and Julian Assange - two polarising figures.

Legally anyone who breaks the confidentiality agreement could be in hot water.

Bambam yes it would and one could argue - rightly so.

Anyway we'll see how this pans out.

But I think we'd all love to see the cheats publically out there. Or like we've seen clubs just side step the agreement.

no 7 & 1/2 would you whistleblow publicly if you had the opportunity? Would you actively break the confidentiality agreement?

Would you call Nigel Wray or Bruce Craig a "cheat" to their faces if given an opportunity?

It's easy to talk about these things on a forum but in RL, things are different.

We can speculate, speculate a bit more but till some substantial evidence is out there that's all we can do.

Scraps of speculation might well be made by someone like Brian Moore but is someone writing something on a twitter page really circumstantial evidence?

I thought you were questioning why someone might want to leak it anonymously? The answer to that is for the reasons you state - would land them in hot water if they did it publicly

Morally they are probably doing the right thing

I'm sure Nigel and Bruce have been called many worse things than cheat in their time

Depends. If I thought I could get away with this one certainly. It would just be confirming what everyone knows anyway.

And yes definitely to calling them cheats.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Depends. If I thought I could get away with this one certainly. It would just be confirming what everyone knows anyway.

And yes definitely to calling them cheats.

Indeed - you could certainly can them cheats and they would be foolish to try to sue as the amount of muckraking you could do would be enormous.

There is a thing called Principle.  And in the past, and even now in the present, some people have had the courage not only to lose their jobs for it but also to die for it.

Now, I'm not suggesting anyone should be dying for the exposure of rugby secrets...................... ..... hopefully.

But I do laugh a little when suspect clubs run to the law for sanctuary against exposure, and believe everyone should be principled in sticking to confidentiality agreements, when the very topic is the inference that suspect clubs didn't stick to earlier 'agreed' principles.

So maybe one day someone of Principle will step forward and not give a damn about losing their job but tell the truth.  It might take a few years of course.

Bambam it was a rhetorical question.

no 7 & 1/2 If you thought you could get away with it - what does that even mean? Want to expose the clubs but not get caught is it? Like a thief who robs a house but isn't caught?

TJ by all means try it if you want.

Secretfly you could look at it the other way round - posters are happy to call teams "cheats" but waver at the opportunity to expose them because they might be punished. Want to cover their own backsides but not accept the consequences of their actions themselves.

Are Edward Snowden and Julian Assange your idols?

You can talk about "principles" but whistleblowing is a morally questionable activity. Also it is technically illegal.

Talking about the earlier "agreed" principles - the salary cap - something that does not exist in Ireland......

In this situation yes. It's not life and death. Like I say we all know the story, it would just be bringing it out in the sunlight. Would you not leak it if you could get away with it?

Do you think that anyone here has the resources to pay legal bills for something that is ultimately as insignificant as this? As annoying as it is, my day to day life is hardly that affected by it, why take the risk?

Someone working within one of the parties has access to the information, and its easy to "lose a laptop" or something that would have the same effect without the same repercussions on a personal level

The fact you think its posters on here that should be punished for their actions is frankly laughable and says a lot about you

beshocked wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Because they wouldn't want to be reprimanded for breaking a confidential agreement?

Exactly. They want to do something morally questionable and potentially illegal but don't want to be caught.

Whistleblowing is morally a grey area and that's why not many would want to admit to it.

Two whistleblowers who did admit to their whistleblowing are Edward Snowden and Julian Assange - two polarising figures.

Legally anyone who breaks the confidentiality agreement could be in hot water.

Bambam yes it would and one could argue - rightly so.

Anyway we'll see how this pans out.

I thought enlightened modern thinking was that whistleblowing, whilst risky for the whistleblower due to the likely vengeance of the accused, is generally morally right in so far that such a thing exists and that honesty should trump paternalism? That's the ethical guidance in medicine, though in reality people often don't do it because people in power can often essentially immorally victimise whistleblowers if they are affected or their old school ethics do not agree with "dobbing".

I suspect people don't want to openly go against the non-disclosure approach, which does sound suspicious of coercion already, due to fear of unjust rather than just retribution. That's just conjecture though. Overall, as a fan, no matter who had done what (and tbh I don't really mind that much as long as admission and apology and future safeguarding take place), I feel let down by the lack of transparency. I'm generally fed up with deception and secrecy

beshocked wrote:

Talking about the earlier "agreed" principles - the salary cap - something that does not exist in Ireland......

Ireland has something far more effective than a salary cap, the credit side of their bank account.

JJ Hanrahan is on 180K per annum with Northampton - Munster didn't compete with that, salary cap or no salary cap.

no 7 & 1/2 it's not life or death so robbing someone's house is ultimately insignificant is it?

Tells me the kind of person you are.

No we don't know the story that's the whole point. Would depend on the information given and how I felt.

Bambam if posters on here do illegal activities and break the law then they should be punished. Is that so difficult for you to accept?

Why shouldn't someone who breaks the law feel repercussions?

There's a lot of accusations floating around but not much evidence and facts as of yet.

beshocked wrote:no 7 & 1/2 it's not life or death so robbing someone's house is ultimately insignificant is it?

Tells me the kind of person you are.

No we don't know the story that's the whole point. Would depend on the information given and how I felt.

Bambam if posters on here do illegal activities and break the law then they should be punished. Is that so difficult for you to accept?

Why shouldn't someone who breaks the law feel repercussions?

There's a lot of accusations floating around but not much evidence and facts as of yet.

What illegal activities? Accusing Nigel of being a naughty boy isn't illegal as far as I know. I don't even think its libellous, otherwise one of the mods would have had this shut down by now

beshocked wrote:

Talking about the earlier "agreed" principles - the salary cap - something that does not exist in Ireland......

We have our agreed principles. Quite tightly linked principles considering our system over here that is quite different to he one operating in England.
A salary cap isn't one of them but limits on foreign players are. Leinster doesn't and couldn't have 10 foreign players, and argue that they need them to be more competitive against AP and Top14, whilst the other Provinces would be expected to keep the agreed limits.

Get it, beshocked? Get the logic of what the argument is now?

You can't change the principles you allegedly abide by, on a whim, independently, after a good night's sleep, simply because you've made the decision in isolation of your partners that the agreements you agreed to no longer suit your long term goals.

Different shades of grey, you may like to live in a black and white world but it isn't reality. So if you had the chance to release that Bath and Saracens are cheating to the world without come back you wouldn't? Why?

Brian Moore ‏@brianmoore666  
Unconfirmed but well sourced rumour Bruce Craig in Ireland  discussing breakaway for Bath to pro12 if PRL don't stop clubs making statements

   

Fly, fancy this?

Ha. Chunky gets his wish.

Bambam whistleblowing could well be deemed as illegal.

Secretfly? Logic? No You keep banging on about foreign players. It's irrelevant to the discussion. You have no salary cap - so stop lecturing us about "principles" and "salary cap".

Sin e Munster didn't compete but could have.

Chequeredjersey whistleblowing is morally a grey area.

no 7 & 1/2 I find that comical, you're the one who is barking but currently has no bite. You're the one who lives in the black and white world where Saracens and Bath are evil "cheats" bullying the other good clubs.... Good vs Evil....

It's not as straightforward as that unfortunately you seem too ignorant to understand.

beshocked wrote:Bambam whistleblowing could well be deemed as illegal.

.

No, it can't - if its true (which we all know it is)

https://www.gov.uk/whistleblowing/what-is-a-whistleblower

1. What is a whistleblower
You’re a whistleblower if you’re a worker and you report certain types of wrongdoing. This will usually be something you’ve seen at work - though not always.

The wrongdoing you disclose must be in the public interest. This means it must affect others, eg the general public.

As a whistleblower you’re protected by law - you shouldn’t be treated unfairly or lose your job because you ‘blow the whistle’.

You can raise your concern at any time about an incident that happened in the past, is happening now, or you believe will happen in the near future.

Complaints that count as whistleblowing
You’re protected by law if you report any of the following:

a criminal offence, eg fraud
someone’s health and safety is in danger
risk or actual damage to the environment
a miscarriage of justice
the company is breaking the law, eg doesn’t have the right insurance
you believe someone is covering up wrongdoing

Come on beshocked. If you got the chance you're saying you wouldn't? Why wouldn't you? It's not as straightforward obviously but we have to start somewhere. Bath and Saracens are cheats we all want to see that confirmed in black and white in public.

BamBam wrote:Brian Moore ‏@brianmoore666  
Unconfirmed but well sourced rumour Bruce Craig in Ireland  discussing breakaway for Bath to pro12 if PRL don't stop clubs making statements

   

Fly, fancy this?

The Regions won't be happy he skipped past them to discuss it!!! We're in trouble with our pals to the east of us.............. again!!!!!

Bambam whistleblowing could well be deemed as illegal.

Secretfly? Logic? No You keep banging on about foreign players. It's irrelevant to the discussion. You have no salary cap - so stop lecturing us about "principles" and "salary cap".

Sin e Munster didn't compete but could have.

Chequeredjersey whistleblowing is morally a grey area.

no 7 & 1/2 I find that comical, you're the one who is barking but currently has no bite. You're the one who lives in the black and white world where Saracens and Bath are evil "cheats" bullying the other good clubs.... Good vs Evil....

It's not as straightforward as that unfortunately you seem too ignorant to understand.

beshocked wrote:

Secretfly? Logic? No You keep banging on about foreign players. It's irrelevant to the discussion. You have no salary cap - so stop lecturing us about "principles" and "salary cap".

Stop lecturing you because you don't like the logic put to you....and I'm not tied into any confidentiality agreements either

A Principle is a principle. Who broke theirs?

Let's just step back from this for a moment. None of us are in a position to expose evidence, so it's all a bit silly.

We are also, strictly speaking, out of order in saying that any club breached the salary cap, because the terms of the settlement that the PRL clubs have agreed says that no-one broke the rules and no-one cheated.

However, we do know three things for definite.

One is that Saracens pushed the cap to the very limits. We know this, because Nigel Wray said it:

Nigel Wray in Torygraph wrote:“We are not being investigated at the moment, which is not to say we will not be in the future as is the case for all the other clubs,” said Wray. “Like them, we look at every single method of stretching the boundaries. What do we think of an outside company wanting one of your players to promote this or that? Where do those image rights fit it? I am not particularly worried about questions directed our way. Our [legal] advice is that we have not broken the salary cap.”

Wray interview link

The second thing we know is that, when it came to light how Saracens were "stretching the boundaries", their fellow clubs were very, very upset about the nature of what they'd done. We can be reasonably confident it was Saracens, despite Wray's denial and the PRL's confidentiality clause: the Daily Mail were confident enough to call it and were unable to get a direct denial Mail

We can also be very certain that this was more than just a case of Saracens coming up with a clever idea that no-one else had thought of. When that happens in business, you kick yourself for not having thought of it, and then try to do the same thing as quickly as you can. The fact that we have all this furore is a clear indicator that whatever Saracens were doing was something that several other clubs felt was in violation of the cap. Even McCafferty's heavily self-censored press statement admitted that there was a difference of legal opinion over whether the cap was broken.

The final thing we know for definite is why the salary cap exists. It's there for the long term health of all the clubs. If you can buy success, then so can everyone else and it rapidly becomes an arms race in which the deepest pocket wins. That's great in the short term if you've got a rich backer. What's not so great is that in the long term it deters fans (because the league is less competitive) and ultimately forces the less rich clubs out of the competition or out of business (fewer wins = fewer fans = less revenue).

That's OK if, like in soccer, there's a fairly inexhaustible list of wannabe clubs. In rugby, where there are perhaps 14 or 15 English clubs capable of maintaining a competitive professional setup, it's disastrous for everyone in the long term, including the club that pushes the boundaries (no competition = fewer fans = lower revenues).

The cap is a piece of commercial self interest. It exists - and the original club owners voluntarily entered into it - to protect the clubs from their own short termism. We can't definitively call anyone a cheat, at least not unless new evidence emerges. But it says quite a lot about a club and its leadership that they would go so far to gain an advantage as to provoke this reaction.

beshocked wrote:

Sin e Munster didn't compete but could have.

They didn't compete on money, so obviously don't need a salary cap. They tried to compete with length of contract (offering him a 3 year rather than a 2 year one).