Silence is not golden when it involves a PRL cover-up

Interesting points here from Jeff Probyn in rugby paper column, I found this quote pretty damning:-

The cautious way in which PRL took to announcing their findings and the ‘agreements’ that were reached so no club was ‘outed’, shows an organisation that appear unwilling or unable to sanction some of their member clubs. If true, PRL, as a collective organisation, should no longer be considered fit for purpose. wrote:

He is very critical of the PRL. I know this will be mostly for our English members on here but I found the article interesting and thought I would share it on here.

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/features/columnists/jeff-probyn/24833/jeff-probyn-column-silence-is-not-golden-when-it-involves-a-prl-cover-up/

What do you all think ?

A very interesting article.

"Unfortunately for our clubs, the tax laws in England do not allow them to bend the salary cap rules in the same or similar way as the clubs in the Top14 – but some have tried."

This is the piece I'm most curious on, because the impact of this would potentially the HMRC would be out of pocket so they would have most to gain from transparency and equally potentially the largest losers if under the table or creative financial arrangements were being put into place with players.

Would a luxury tax be a possibility with the PRL? It would allow the top clubs to to go above the cap, but it would create a pot of money that could then put split across the PRL members not breaching the cap. You could go a step further and have any salary paid from that pot be exempt from the salary cap in the following year. The top could subsidise the middle and bottom.

"Unwilling or unable" is the key question. And the answer is probably "unable".

How would they be unable though?

Because it wouldn't stand up in court

You mean threatened by legal action against any sanctions (which were agreed by the PRL previously) by the 2 clubs (supposedly before my learned friends interject) which would have been found guilty?

Either way a poor showing which does nothing for the PRL or Aviva.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You mean threatened by legal action against any sanctions (which were agreed by the PRL previously) by the 2 clubs (supposedly before my learned friends interject) which would have been found guilty?

Either way a poor showing which does nothing for the PRL or Aviva.

Basically yes. Salary caps are very hard to get right.

Looking that way, which is a shame for the league.

What is the point in making rules for themselves only to willingly flout them?

The answer is simple, name and shame "these are the clubs we think are flouting the salary cap" see what happens to the advertising income etc. with all the negative publicity. It might not break them, but it would hurt.

Probyn's article adds nothing new to the debate, nor introduces anything we were not aware of already. It does however continue his own personal vendetta against pro (and especially club pro) rugby.

Across all his writing, Probyn comes across as:

a) An old fart (ironic really after the shenanigans in 91)
b) A bitter and twisted individual unwilling to accept that changes can ever be for better.
c) would much rather have Divisional games played in front of one man and a dog at the Met Police Groundf rather than enthralling East Midlands Derbies in front of a sellout 26k crowd. (And don not get me started on how much he seems to despise Quins "Big Match" or Sarries Wembley sell-outs)