Toulon fined 100,000 for exceeding French League salary cap

First topic message reminder :

Boudjellal's Toulon vow to contest fine for breaking Top 14 salary cap
The RCT president reacted angrily to the decision against his club.

TOULON SAY THEY will contest a fine imposed on them by the Ligue Nationale de Rugby [LNR] for breaking the Top 14′s salary cap.

The French rugby governing body yesterday announced that the three-time European champions have been fined €100,000 for exceeding the €10 million salary cap during the 2014/15 season.

Mourad Boudjellal Toulon president Boudjellal is a controversial figure. Source: Inpho/Billy Stickland

The LNR’s revelation that Toulon would be punished came after an investigation launched by the Direction Nationale d’Aide et de Contrôle de Gestion [DNACG], French rugby’s financial watchdog.

Mourad Boudjellal’s Toulon have responded by issuing a statement in which they say the club “strongly contests” the decision. In fact, Toulon claim that they were not directly informed of the fine by the LNR or DNACG.

The decision is subject to appeal, and Toulon have indicated their intention to proceed with an appeal.

The DNACG’s investigation was carried out by Deloitte, who Boudjellal called into question in a fiery response to the fine, when speaking to L’Équipe. The RCT owner suggested that Toulon were the targets of a plot by Clermont, the LNR and Deloitte.

“[This decision] blames me, even though the best-paid French players in the Top 14 are Morgan Parra and Aurélien Rougerie, two Clermont players,” Boudjellal told L’Équipe.

“And then Deloitte was the statutory auditor in this case, you know. And they are people of Michelin [the company behind Clermont] paid by the league [LNR]. I’m 1000% sure of it.”

Boudjellal also threatened that Toulon would not take part in the opening round of the new Top 14 season in two weekends’ time if the matter was not resolved to his satisfaction.

“I do not see how Toulon can start the championship,” said Boudjellal.

http://www.the42.ie/toulon-salary-cap-top-14-fine-boudjellal-2922250-Aug2016/

True 7.5, I'd forgotten Nige and Bruce were such generous, charming and charitable souls

A few links on the salary cap breaches:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/premiership/11982510/Premiership-rugby-salary-cap-cover-up-is-a-scandal-which-cheats-fans.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/11305609/Saracens-and-Bath-under-investigation-for-alleged-salary-cap-breach.html

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/may/28/salary-cap-bath-saracens-premiership-final

http://www.therugbypaper.co.uk/latest-news/23464/exclusive-premiership-salary-cap-breaches-will-go-unpunished/

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/34683897

Literally 5 mins on Google

BoJelly insists he was 80k under the cap so he must be correct. He would be a foolish man to slander Michelin through the papers. He's too smart for that. Hopefully for 15/16 season he put himself 180k below the cap just to be sure.

Guys, why are people dragging up the PRL salary cap investigation? The acknowledged the investigation took place. A load of clubs issued statements declaring that they had fully complied with the investigation and were clear. They didn't want a boring report coming out around the RWC because it would have ruined the mood and put people to sleep if they tried to read the whole thing. It was all done with a view to best practice and corporate social responsibility, which is good because Aviva pay a lot of money to associate themselves with premiership rugby because of common values and relationships with their customer base. To do anything other than full transparency would have damaged premiership rugby and its sponsors.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:To do anything other than full transparency would have damaged premiership rugby and its sponsors.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... But you realise that full transparency is what all the fans wanted and what two clubs used their lawyers to ban right?

Seagultaf wrote:Every competition in sport has its rules, whilst they have to be complied with, it's the nature of sport that these are stretched and bent as far as possible to gain a competitive advantage.

Boudjellal and Toulon have been caught, so their choice is simple: Take the derisory punishment on the chin and trim their playing budget to get back within the rules, or find another competition to play in.

This would be a high risk route as they need the French Leauge to gain their European place, so they could lose all their playing income. I am sure that the English Premiership would welcome them but they have an even smaller player budget cap. So does that just leave the Southern Hemisphere competition?

So, by that logic, you'd deny them an appeal?

formerly known as Sam wrote:I think it depends on how far over the salary cap they were. A hundred grand fine suggests not very much. In AP terms a 50k overspend would equate to a 100k fine. That could be a simple administration error. That's not really points docking territory.

That's far too sensible for this board.

PhilBB wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:I think it depends on how far over the salary cap they were. A hundred grand fine suggests not very much. In AP terms a 50k overspend would equate to a 100k fine. That could be a simple administration error. That's not really points docking territory.

That's far too sensible for this board.

You're right Phil, the problem is no one knows whether it was a £50 overspend or a £500 one.

Irish Londoner wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:I think it depends on how far over the salary cap they were. A hundred grand fine suggests not very much. In AP terms a 50k overspend would equate to a 100k fine. That could be a simple administration error. That's not really points docking territory.

That's far too sensible for this board.

You're right Phil, the problem is no one knows whether it was a £50 overspend or a £500 one.

We know that Mourad claims it was a €80,000 underspend.

yappysnap wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:To do anything other than full transparency would have damaged premiership rugby and its sponsors.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... But you realise that full transparency is what all the fans wanted and what two clubs used their lawyers to ban right?

It's easy to say you want full transparency but what do you mean by that?

Do you mean every player has their salary published? Meaning that you, me, every man and their dog can see how much player X is earning? Do you think that's right?

Would you like it if everyone knew what your salary was?

Maybe you would want that. I am sure not everyone feels that way.

Nope, just full transparency on how much Saracens and Bath cheated by, why they aren't being docked points and how the agreement on what their fines should be was arrived at

And acknowledgement by Nigel and Bruce that they cheated would be nice too, but I wouldn't expect that

That would do me

beshocked wrote:

It's easy to say you want full transparency but what do you mean by that?

Do you mean every player has their salary published? Meaning that you, me, every man and their dog can see how much player X is earning? Do you think that's right?

Would you like it if everyone knew what your salary was?

Maybe you would want that. I am sure not everyone feels that way.

I think that I agree with you but it's worth noting that the Yankee Soccer lot publish the salaries.

BamBam wrote:Nope, just full transparency on how much Saracens and Bath cheated by, why they aren't being docked points and how the agreement on what their fines should be was arrived at

And acknowledgement by Nigel and Bruce that they cheated would be nice too, but I wouldn't expect that

That would do me

Can I ask why you're interested? The rest of PRL aren't and they only 'cheated' the rest of PRL, if they cheated at all.

BamBam wrote:True 7.5, I'd forgotten Nige and Bruce were such generous, charming and charitable souls

You'll struggle to think of better adjectives in the context of what they've done for their clubs.

Cheating gits would be a better one.

Beat me to it

PhilBB wrote:

BamBam wrote:Nope, just full transparency on how much Saracens and Bath cheated by, why they aren't being docked points and how the agreement on what their fines should be was arrived at

And acknowledgement by Nigel and Bruce that they cheated would be nice too, but I wouldn't expect that

That would do me

Can I ask why you're interested? The rest of PRL aren't and they only 'cheated' the rest of PRL, if they cheated at all.

I think its in the public interest of all rugby fans to know whether the champions of England only got there by cheating to sign more/better players

BamBam wrote:
I think its in the public interest of all rugby fans to know whether the champions of England only got there by cheating to sign more/better players

Why is it? Those they may have cheated don't have an issue with it.

I mean, it's not cheating on the scale of Munster's financial situation, as a parallel. Or how the SRU give an imbalance to the salaries of their two teams. Few moan in Scotland and Ireland.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cheating gits would be a better one.

Yet those they allegedly cheated would disagree with you. Funny that.

Munster's financial situation? Are they cheating like Saracens and Bath?

You may like cheats and accept things like this (cover ups etc) Phil, plenty don't.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Cheating gits would be a better one.

Yet those they allegedly cheated would disagree with you. Funny that.

Really? We're all rugby supporters and plenty agree with me.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Munster's financial situation? Are they cheating like Saracens and Bath?

You may like cheats and accept things like this (cover ups etc)  Phil, plenty don't.

I can't remember Saracens and Bath being convicted of cheating.

Munster are cheating the rest of the Irish game out of their repayments, yes. Money that could be spent elsewhere.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Really? We're all rugby supporters and plenty agree with me.

Yes, really. Who that they allegedly cheated is complaining?

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Munster's financial situation? Are they cheating like Saracens and Bath?

You may like cheats and accept things like this (cover ups etc)  Phil, plenty don't.

I can't remember Saracens and Bath being convicted of cheating.

Munster are cheating the rest of the Irish game out of their repayments, yes. Money that could be spent elsewhere.

Yet those they allegedly cheated would disagree with you. Funny that.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Munster's financial situation? Are they cheating like Saracens and Bath?

You may like cheats and accept things like this (cover ups etc)  Phil, plenty don't.

I can't remember Saracens and Bath being convicted of cheating.

Munster are cheating the rest of the Irish game out of their repayments, yes. Money that could be spent elsewhere.

So Munster aren't breaking any rules then?

Do you believe that Bath and Saracens were innocent but insisted on paying money to keep that innocent verdict and how much they were innocent secret? Really?

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Really? We're all rugby supporters and plenty agree with me.

Yes, really. Who that they allegedly cheated is complaining?

Me. Bam. That's 2. Read through the forums and you'll see plenty.

BamBam wrote:
Yet those they allegedly cheated would disagree with you. Funny that.

Who is that, sorry?

No 7&1/2 wrote:
So Munster aren't breaking any rules then?

Do you believe that Bath and Saracens were innocent but insisted on paying money to keep that innocent verdict and how much they were innocent secret? Really?

None of Munster, Bath or Saracens are proven to have broken any rules.

Agreed?

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Me. Bam. That's 2. Read through the forums and you'll see plenty.

You guys haven't been allegedly cheated.

PhilBB wrote:

BamBam wrote:
Yet those they allegedly cheated would disagree with you. Funny that.

Who is that, sorry?

I don't know, you insinuated that Munster had cheated the other Irish sides, but I haven't seen them calling Munster cheating gits either

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
So Munster aren't breaking any rules then?

Do you believe that Bath and Saracens were innocent but insisted on paying money to keep that innocent verdict and how much they were innocent secret? Really?

None of Munster, Bath or Saracens are proven to have broken any rules.

Agreed?

No. Bath and Sarcens have and have done a dodgy deal. I repeat do you believe if they were foudn innocent they would have paid to keep the results secret?

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
Me. Bam. That's 2. Read through the forums and you'll see plenty.

You guys haven't been allegedly cheated.

I have

I pay my Sky Sports/BT subscription, plus the tickets to the few games I get to

I pay those to watch a hard fought rugby match, on a level playing field with both sides playing within the rules

That equally applies to their off field activities, otherwise I may as well buy tickets to watch Nige bash other owners over the head with the bulge in his wallet

It is a shame for Saracens as I think they'll be under the cap now and not cheating any longer but because of the politics these questions will go on and on. Does take away from their accomplisments.

BamBam wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

BamBam wrote:
Yet those they allegedly cheated would disagree with you. Funny that.

Who is that, sorry?

I don't know, you insinuated that Munster had cheated the other Irish sides, but I haven't seen them calling Munster cheating gits either

I'm sure that somebody in the Irish game would like the extra hundreds of thousands of euro.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
No. Bath and Sarcens have and have done a dodgy deal. I repeat do you believe if they were foudn innocent they would have paid to keep the results secret?

Ok, you'll have to break this down for me. I know that a commercial agreement was made, but I'm unaware of money being paid.

What was paid, when and to whom?

Thanks in advance.

BamBam wrote:

I have

I pay my Sky Sports/BT subscription, plus the tickets to the few games I get to

I pay those to watch a hard fought rugby match, on a level playing field with both sides playing within the rules

That equally applies to their off field activities, otherwise I may as well buy tickets to watch Nige bash other owners over the head with the bulge in his wallet

Right, in which case all fans are cheated by financial irregularities.

Thanks for that.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
No. Bath and Sarcens have and have done a dodgy deal. I repeat do you believe if they were foudn innocent they would have paid to keep the results secret?

Ok, you'll have to break this down for me. I know that a commercial agreement was made, but I'm unaware of money being paid.

What was paid, when and to whom?

Thanks in advance.

Don't know, don't know and don't know

That's what happens when Nigel and Bruce's lawyers make sure it all gets sealed up and put away "for the good of English rugby"

PhilBB wrote:

BamBam wrote:

I have

I pay my Sky Sports/BT subscription, plus the tickets to the few games I get to

I pay those to watch a hard fought rugby match, on a level playing field with both sides playing within the rules

That equally applies to their off field activities, otherwise I may as well buy tickets to watch Nige bash other owners over the head with the bulge in his wallet

Right, in which case all fans are cheated by financial irregularities.

Thanks for that.

Are they not?

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
No. Bath and Sarcens have and have done a dodgy deal. I repeat do you believe if they were foudn innocent they would have paid to keep the results secret?

Ok, you'll have to break this down for me. I know that a commercial agreement was made, but I'm unaware of money being paid.

What was paid, when and to whom?

Thanks in advance.

Confidential settlement to keep the results secret. So again, do you believe if they were found innocent they would have done this? How do they benefit if innocnet?

Just seems like Phil doesn't mind cheating salary caps. Which is a point of view I don't agree with.

BamBam wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:
No. Bath and Sarcens have and have done a dodgy deal. I repeat do you believe if they were foudn innocent they would have paid to keep the results secret?

Ok, you'll have to break this down for me. I know that a commercial agreement was made, but I'm unaware of money being paid.

What was paid, when and to whom?

Thanks in advance.

Don't know, don't know and don't know

That's what happens when Nigel and Bruce's lawyers make sure it all gets sealed up and put away "for the good of English rugby"

Right. So you make a claim that money was paid but you don't know how much, when or to whom.

Nice.

BamBam wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

BamBam wrote:

I have

I pay my Sky Sports/BT subscription, plus the tickets to the few games I get to

I pay those to watch a hard fought rugby match, on a level playing field with both sides playing within the rules

That equally applies to their off field activities, otherwise I may as well buy tickets to watch Nige bash other owners over the head with the bulge in his wallet

Right, in which case all fans are cheated by financial irregularities.

Thanks for that.

Are they not?

Well, if you extend that logic, my club is being cheated by the IRFU and SRU. Therefore, I think that you've convinced me.

Thanks.

But neither of those unions have broken any rules Phil.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just seems like Phil doesn't mind cheating salary caps. Which is a point of view I don't agree with.

And yet you can provide no evidence for any salary cap being cheated. That's what I'm pointing out to you, not my opinion on the cheating of salary caps.

Sorry, I thought that I had made that clear enough. Obviously, I had not.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But neither of those unions have broken any rules Phil.

And you can't provide any evidence that Bath and Saracens have, either, but it's not stopping you. Is it?

You and beshocked should get a room ...let everyone know you're getting a room .. sign a personal agreement to never disclose the details of your activities that night...then threaten to sue anyone who ever claims that you ever got a room

And we go back to wouldn't it have been nice for full transparency. And again Phil,do you believe if they were found innocent they would have kept the results secret? How do they benefit if innocnet?

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:But neither of those unions have broken any rules Phil.

And you can't provide any evidence that Bath and Saracens have, either, but it's not stopping you. Is it?

So to confirm you have no problem with Munster?

BamBam wrote:You and beshocked should get a room ...let everyone know you're getting a room ..  sign a personal agreement to never disclose the details of your activities that night...then threaten to sue anyone who ever claims that you ever got a room

Don't forget about sacking the employee who leaked that they had booked a room.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And we go back to wouldn't it have been nice for full transparency. And again Phil,do you believe if they were found innocent they would have kept the results secret? How do they benefit if innocnet?

Yes, full transparency is great. A league salary cap that cannot be broken without penalty would be bloody marvellous. Imagine having all of that in the PrO'12?

Oh. Shame it's impossible.

My take on it is that they found a loophole. They neither broke the cap nor cheated, but found a loophole that would have embarrassed all had it leaked. It would have made PRL look silly, so all agreed for silence.

As it stands, you're accusing them of cheating (without any evidence) and of making a payment to hush it up (without knowing how much, to whom and when). From where I'm sitting, you're not holding any evidence.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:But neither of those unions have broken any rules Phil.

And you can't provide any evidence that Bath and Saracens have, either, but it's not stopping you. Is it?

So to confirm you have no problem with Munster?

I have a problem with single owners of multiple teams in a league, yes.