AP Clubs Vote to Block Salary Cap Investigation!

First topic message reminder :

Or Saints keeping Ashton.

As with most statements, no mention of whether they were a team that reached a settlement, nor whether they were investigated.

Is this the most telling sentence?

This system was inherently unfair, open to challenge and was in need of fundamental change.

Quoting the year that apparently wasn't the one being investigated is a nice bit of misdirection too ....

I do wonder if they included the transfer fee paid to Rabbitohs against the cap.

Not if they could get away with it probably ...

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Can't view it as the site is down. If it's denying they broke the cap then we were right to think that the statements by all but Wasps and Gloucester are worthless.

Edit: Ok thanks LT. First of all I doubt 2014-2015 was the year which was being investigated, since the first reports started coming out early December. Bath's spend might well have been £4.71m, but the crux of this is payments to players from 3rd party sponsors.

Also, I should probably admit that I stopped reading after they complained that the cap was preventing them from competing with France. I've read enough of that Poopie from Beshocked.

Can I just say that O'Shea also, when I reread it, said that Harlequins were not under investigation?

Nobody is now. Th investigation was stopped.

Bath Rugby can confirm the Club was within the salary cap for the 2014/15 season. The cap for the 2014/15 season was £4.76m before allowances and credits. Bath Rugby’s salary cap spend was £4.71m during that period. Bath Rugby can also reassure supporters that the Club’s spend will be within the salary cap for the 2015/2016 season.

Yes but if you don't count the extra money you paid players as part of the salary cap then of course you're inside it still!

Fuzzy, the competing with France thing is pretty much the only thing I have sympathy for in Bath's stance on the salary cap!

Joe Marlers response to Baths statement...

https://mobile.twitter.com/joemarler/status/660173824957247489

Read into it what you want!

Bath's statement just shows the contempt they hold everyone in IMO as they think people aren't even smart enough to realise it's meaningless as it's not even referring to the year in question ...

Just ask them why they paid a 'settlement' then? Why pay money if you're innocent?

Precisely - although I don't think they've admitted that have they?

Just shows what a frickin farce this is.
And how low some owners will sink.
Flip them all I say, and let them burn

Heaf wrote:Precisely - although I don't think they've admitted that have they?

I doubt that they have, as they'd have been 'potentially' lying. But that's why they should be asked about a 'settlement'. Did they pay one? And if so, why?
I wonder will journalists eventually get around to asking direct question of people from these clubs and not simply print out the statements?

I suspect they'd just clam up saying they couldn't comment due the confidentiality agreement ... although all the clubs who didn't pay a settlement might be able to say they didn't in the same way some are saying they weren't subjected to an investigation.

Poorfour wrote:Fuzzy, the competing with France thing is pretty much the only thing I have sympathy for in Bath's stance on the salary cap!

I'm just fed up of seeing the pursuit of European glory used to justify either outright cheating in the domestic competition or raising the cap to levels that many AP clubs can't afford. I'm slightly biased in that my priorities as a fan are overwhelmingly Premiership > Euro cup > international rugby so would never want to see the competitiveness of the AP compromised trying to chase Toulon, but I can't imagine that's a minority view.

As it stands I like the cap where it is now and would prefer if it wasn't increased in the next two seasons.

Yes. If the heart and intent was there to expose two clubs out of a batch of 12, there are ways.
But I guess the complication here is that some of the clubs who weren't investigated or didn't pay a settlement are still intent on honouring the idea of 'let's move on and past this without disclosure'.

They're honouring the confidentiality agreement totally. So its had then to get a wording or a question that would isolate two clubs.

Although I suspect unfortunately even if that happened they'd still just brazen it out such is their apparent contempt for everyone else ...

It will be interesting to see if the Sarries statement is equally enlightening.

Considering what has gone on in F1 in recent years, and in FIFA and even in International cycling (can't think of the controlling group's name)... but it is striking how brazen the intent now is not to tell the public the full truth after all those other episodes in recent years. It is really contempt for people's common-sense.

Look at it this way. If out of the blue some innocent clubs were accused in virtually every media sphere (official and social) of doing something illegal and getting away with it................. if that happened, then absolutely none of the statements coming out now would sound like they do.

The statements themselves from the innocent clubs are loaded with knowledge that the public are right to be suspicious. If they felt there was no case to answer for any of the clubs then their own very statements of denial wouldn't even read like they do.

But more importantly.... if innocence existed all round, then the two clubs actually named as 'guilty' would be shocked that they've been falsely accused of such a thing. They'd need no encouragement to come into the media to fight their case of shock, annoyance, anger and total denial of all accusations made against them.

But what we get is either total silence from clubs that know they are the ones being mentioned or..... this pseudo legal response of no emotion and little detail. If Bath was angry to have been so misrepresented then even their statement would be much more full on firey and indignant.

So the mood of keeping a lid on truth, away from the public, and being comfortable with being vague and non-committal, it's staggering considering the outrage in the media at all the cover-ups that happened in FIFA.

yes - all of the above ...

Picked this up from Brian Moore's Tweets:



Spot the difference?



 

Fascinated to see Simon Cohen's column in today's match program

It's your AGM tommorow, isn't it? Does it make sense that any 'statement' would go there before being released?

HammerofThunor wrote:It's your AGM tommorow, isn't it? Does it make sense that any 'statement' would go there before being released?

I will write up what Cohen said later when I have recovered from the foggy drive.

Yes AGM tomorrow, though I am watching my eldest daughter play the nurse in romeo and Juliet.

Yeah, I remember you saying. Hope you enjoy it.

Fog's hit up here recently too. Spoke to my brother in Kent this afternoon and he said it was bad down there.

Pea soup in Surrey too, out on the bike in it today and it was interesting to say the least!

Fog?

Perfect time for a few more statements...

Simon Cohen wrote:We welcome Wasps in what has now become a local derby, which is great for Tigers and the game.

What has not been so great for the gamehas been some of the publicity surrounding the salary cap.Many clubs, including Tigers, have been urged by fans to say they have not been investigated. However, this is an impossible task because neither Wasps nor any club can say with any certainty that they have not been investigated as it would be foolhardy for the Salary Cap Manager when trying to compile evidence to inform the clubs that he is in the process of doing so.

The clubs that have not been involved have no knowledge of any of the specific issues and it is, therefore, difficult to comment on.
For our own part, we are aware that ambiguities exist within most regulations and it would not necessarily be a breach of the regulations to attempt to utilise that ambiguity.

If any ambiguity is resolved by what PRL define as a material settlement and no breach is proved then it would be a huge risk for PRL to implicate that club as a salary cap cheat and lay themselves open to the extensive litigation that would almost certainly follow.

We at Tigers are very aware of the frustration this has caused to a number of our fans but the good news is that the revised salary cap framework provides an opportunity for clubs to compete within Europe while still creating level playing field for what, hopefully, today's game will demonstrate is a very vibrant league.


Simon Cohen

Sponsored by William Hercock Limited

Read into that what you will.

Professionalism at its most soulless

bit disappointing really, same as what Ben Kay was saying on Rugby Tonight

Soulless, spineless, close enough to driving me away from the Jeff, which may be necessitated anyway after Hunt drives me away from the UK

ChequeredJersey wrote:Soulless, spineless, close enough to driving me away from the Jeff, which may be necessitated anyway after Hunt drives me away from the UK

Lets all chip in a buy a SH island somewhere. Public holidays for any rugby match with a couple of beers a requirement by law

nathan wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Soulless, spineless, close enough to driving me away from the Jeff, which may be necessitated anyway after Hunt drives me away from the UK

Lets all chip in a buy a SH island somewhere. Public holidays for any rugby match with a couple of beers a requirement by law

ChequeredJersey wrote:Soulless, spineless, close enough to driving me away from the Jeff, which may be necessitated anyway after Hunt drives me away from the UK

CJ - it is palpably unfair that more people survive if admitted to your care on a Wednesday. Kill a few more midweek inpatients and all will be well.

Just wait till he starts looking at Monthly records and wonders why August looks so bad

LondonTiger wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Soulless, spineless, close enough to driving me away from the Jeff, which may be necessitated anyway after Hunt drives me away from the UK

CJ - it is palpably unfair that more people survive if admitted to your care on a Wednesday. Kill a few more midweek inpatients and all will be well.

Just wait till he starts looking at Monthly records and wonders why August looks so bad

LondonTiger wrote:

Simon Cohen wrote:We welcome Wasps in what has now become a local derby, which is great for Tigers and the game.

What has not been so great for the gamehas been some of the publicity surrounding the salary cap.Many clubs, including Tigers, have been urged by fans to say they have not been investigated. However, this is an impossible task because neither Wasps nor any club can say with any certainty that they have not been investigated as it would be foolhardy for the Salary Cap Manager when trying to compile evidence to inform the clubs that he is in the process of doing so.

The clubs that have not been involved have no knowledge of any of the specific issues and it is, therefore, difficult to comment on.
For our own part, we are aware that ambiguities exist within most regulations and it would not necessarily be a breach of the regulations to attempt to utilise that ambiguity.

If any ambiguity is resolved by what PRL define as a material settlement and no breach is proved then it would be a huge risk for PRL to implicate that club as a salary cap cheat and lay themselves open to the extensive litigation that would almost certainly follow.

We at Tigers are very aware of the frustration this has caused to a number of our fans but the good news is that the revised salary cap framework provides an opportunity for clubs to compete within Europe while still creating level playing field for what, hopefully, today's game will demonstrate is a very vibrant league.


Simon Cohen

Sponsored by William Hercock Limited

Read into that what you will.

"However, this is an impossible task.."

It's not impossible. It's already been done.

" it would be foolhardy for the Salary Cap Manager when trying to compile evidence to inform the clubs that he is in the process of doing so."

Yes, when trying to compile evidence, but not now.

"The clubs that have not been involved have no knowledge of any of the specific issues and it is, therefore, difficult to comment on."

No knowledge of specific issues, but can still comment in a more general sense.

"For our own part, we are aware that ambiguities exist within most regulations and it would not necessarily be a breach of the regulations to attempt to utilise that ambiguity."

That can easily be interpreted as an admission of guilt. I don't believe it is, but if it isn't, he's a numpty.

"If any ambiguity is resolved by what PRL define as a material settlement ....."

Bribe.

".... it would be a huge risk for PRL to implicate that club as a salary cap cheat and lay themselves open to the extensive litigation that would almost certainly follow."

The cheats will get away with it because they have threatened that they will drag PRL, or any club owner, to court if they go public. This can also be interpreted as a not so veiled threat by Cohen.

"....the good news is that the revised salary cap framework provides an opportunity for clubs to compete within Europe..."

Which clubs would that be?

"... while still creating level playing field..."

With certain clubs cheating, there was never a level playing field, and because the cheats have been allowed to get away with, the league is even more tipped in favour of the cheats.

Cohen needs a kick in the @rse for coming out with that drivel.

Just my take on it.

All the club representatives on the PRL board voted to agree the settlement. Therefore they must have known what they were settling on.

Everythign will leak out. it always does. Just like trying to hold back a tide of rising rising water, it always will out. Only question by when, where, and by whom. Just a matter of time. For me, the sooner, the better.

nathan wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Soulless, spineless, close enough to driving me away from the Jeff, which may be necessitated anyway after Hunt drives me away from the UK

Lets all chip in a buy a SH island somewhere. Public holidays for any rugby match with a couple of beers a requirement by law

I know that the Bahamas RFU gets 4 tickets for all the home nations fixtures (including 4 to the final), so buying a small island and setting up a national RFU sounds like a way forward...


Also, that statement somehow manages to sound even more suspicious than the Bath one, it sounds very much like they are involved in some interesting payment plans themselves.

Simon Cohen wrote:We welcome Wasps in what has now become a local derby, which is great for Tigers and the game.

Hey pests, we will beat you again. MUAHAHAHAHA

Simon Cohen wrote:
What has not been so great for the game has been some of the publicity surrounding the salary cap.Many clubs, including Tigers, have been urged by fans to say they have not been investigated. However, this is an impossible task because neither Wasps nor any club can say with any certainty that they have not been investigated as it would be foolhardy for the Salary Cap Manager when trying to compile evidence to inform the clubs that he is in the process of doing so.

I have been ignoring you all so far, but hey I have to say something. Anyway I reckon it is pretty fair to say that not every public statement made this week has been true. Because, you know the SCM does his work in secret by the power of magic.

Simon Cohen wrote:
The clubs that have not been involved have no knowledge of any of the specific issues and it is, therefore, difficult to comment on.
For our own part, we are aware that ambiguities exist within most regulations and it would not necessarily be a breach of the regulations to attempt to utilise that ambiguity.

Look guys, in the past, before the current rules we made use of such ambiguities. What you actually thought that Geordie and Castro paid their own money for that restaurant?

Simon Cohen wrote:
If any ambiguity is resolved by what PRL define as a material settlement and no breach is proved then it would be a huge risk for PRL to implicate that club as a salary cap cheat and lay themselves open to the extensive litigation that would almost certainly follow.

OK - some clubs paid a cough, bribe, cough commercial settlement, and if any of us talk about that they will sue the pants of us.

Simon Cohen wrote:

We at Tigers are very aware of the frustration this has caused to a number of our fans but the good news is that the revised salary cap framework provides an opportunity for clubs to compete within Europe while still creating level playing field for what, hopefully, today's game will demonstrate is a very vibrant league.

And to conclude, following the party line because we agreed to do so if they promised not to poach our players, all will be milk and honey.

Simon Cohen wrote:


Simon Cohen

Sponsored by William Hercock Limited

Oh yeah and look at my fab sponsors. Get yer building supplies here.

LT, you are Hugh Dennis off of Mock the Week, and I claim my £5.

Bathman_in_London wrote:

nathan wrote:

ChequeredJersey wrote:Soulless, spineless, close enough to driving me away from the Jeff, which may be necessitated anyway after Hunt drives me away from the UK

Lets all chip in a buy a SH island somewhere. Public holidays for any rugby match with a couple of beers a requirement by law

I know that the Bahamas RFU gets 4 tickets for all the home nations fixtures (including 4 to the final), so buying a small island and setting up a national RFU sounds like a way forward...


Also, that statement somehow manages to sound even more suspicious than the Bath one, it sounds very much like they are involved in some interesting payment plans themselves.

Sounds good to me. Just need to get a national anthem now!

Tigers statement definitely sounds the least trust worthy, there's something about it that suggests Cohen is patting you on the head and telling you not to worry yourself while the adults sort this out...

I still think Bath's was worse because they were very clear and open...about the wrong season. That strikes me as a deliberate attempt to manipulate rather than trying to just avoid the issue.

Still Waiting for the AGM @ 3:00 to start drawing proper conclusions.

This is Tigers official statement on the salary cap:


At the meeting, the club issued the following statement regarding questions on the Premiership Rugby salary cap: "The Premiership clubs agreed to keep all aspects of the Salary Cap Settlement confidential and it disappoints us that most clubs have chosen another path.

"At our Annual General Meeting today, the Board made a statement that it is only fair to all our stakeholders to clarify now that our decision not to comment before today should not be taken as confirmation of our involvement in any settlement with Premiership Rugby.

"We are pleased that the way forward with the Salary Framework Agreement should lead to English clubs being more competitive in European competition. There will be no further comment on the matter from Leicester Tigers."




So they have clarified that they are not clarifying anything about the salary cap....

I like the way they say it shouldn't be taken as confirmation as their involvement in the settlement, without saying they weren't involved in the settlement.

Exactly, and then you add that to the previous statement and it all looks very dubious.

The previous statement can be interpreted as an admission of guilt, and because they have clarified that they are not speaking out in this statement, it can also be interpreted that they are not guilty, but have accepted the bribe.

Whatever the truth, they are being very unfair on their fans.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xYI3M2098w