IRFU Finances - with ecumenical matter.

First topic message reminder :

Ok - don't say you weren't warned.

If you've no interest in spreadsheets, balance sheets, profit and loss accounts, annual reports, etc., then this topic is not for you. (I'm looking at you, Fly)

If on the other hand, there are Irish fans who want to know more about how finances in Irish rugby work, courtesy of published Annual Reports, media articles and mutterings, AGMs, then feel free to join in.

The intent behind this Topic is  for contributors to talk through/explain or ask questions about how different aspects of the finances in Irish rugby operate from grassroots through to National Team.  

Updated 26 Oct 2020

ESTIMATE
IRFU Expenditure 2019/20 - 15 months

Men's Test Team Costs
National tours, camps and squads 299,398
National match costs 2,616,509
National Team Management & staff 15 months 2,500,000
Mgmt/Test Player bonuses/match fees/insurance 2,750,000
Central Contract Test Players 14-15 X €500k avg 7,500,000
Additional 3 months of Test player salaries 1,875,000

Provincial Support Costs
IRFU exceptional contribution grant split by 4 branches 1,750,000
80 players x €90,000 contribution across 4 professional teams 7,200,000
65 players x €50,000 contribution across 4 professional teams 3,250,000
Additional 3 months of provincial player salaries 2,562,500
Rebate of Provincial Competition Income (CI) 16,029,521

Total expenditure cost for 15 months on Professional Game - €48,327,540.

That's just to kick things off.  Feel free to contribute.

So Phill your answer is you want Leinster to spend more to be even more dominant.  Yet the 4 private teams don't see the league as a good investmen.  Glad I don't have your logic as if it is good investment for Leinster it should be good for the Blues who have a larger population of rugby loving people.

So the 80% that the WRU pay for certain players, is that just a gift to the owner for bringing the boys home and keeping them there.

3-4k fans in Scarlets seemed to care a great deal about winning/compeditive the league who seemed to drop off once they weren't pushing to win the league.

You still haven't justified why you are so upset with the IRFU for looking after their own interests.  No one disputes Leinster and Munster spend the most in the league.

But people dispute private owners who can't call on the added benefits of the Union are better off than those tied to the Unions. If anything apart from the one backed by a large multinational the other 3 can't get the same standard of coach.

There was an interesting article published in the Sunday Indo last weekend outing the new governance structure that is mooted to be put in place in the IRFU with a more corporate structure being considered for the organisation.

How this will flow to how the 4 branches of the Union will be governed remains to be seen.

Brendan wrote:So Phill your answer is you want Leinster to spend more to be even more dominant.  Yet the 4 private teams don't see the league as a good investmen.  Glad I don't have your logic as if it is good investment for Leinster it should be good for the Blues who have a larger population of rugby loving people.

So the 80% that the WRU pay for certain players, is that just a gift to the owner for bringing the boys home and keeping them there.

3-4k fans in Scarlets seemed to care a great deal about winning/compeditive the league  who seemed to drop off once they weren't pushing to win the league.

You still haven't justified why you are so upset with the IRFU for looking after their own interests.  No one disputes Leinster and Munster spend the most in the league.

But people dispute private owners who can't call on the added benefits of the Union are better off than those tied to the Unions.  If anything apart from the one backed by a large multinational the other 3 can't get the same standard of coach.

You have to understand that Phil is much more concerned that the Irish teams do badly than the Welsh teams do well. In Phil's mind this is up there with the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 as one of the great conspiracy theories, even if all the other countries in the 6Ns and across the world are perfectly happy with Ireland running it's own system. It's wrong and unfair because Phil thinks it is.

Brendan wrote:So Phill your answer is you want Leinster to spend more to be even more dominant.  Yet the 4 private teams don't see the league as a good investmen.  Glad I don't have your logic as if it is good investment for Leinster it should be good for the Blues who have a larger population of rugby loving people.

Jesus wept. Are you writing this nonsense on purpose or because you can't understand what I'm writing.

Leinster would be dominant in a proper league that wasn't Union-ruined. A B&I league with no Union ownership is how Leinster would grow

Brendan wrote:

So the 80% that the WRU pay for certain players, is that just a gift to the owner for bringing the boys home and keeping them there.

3-4k fans in Scarlets seemed to care a great deal about winning/compeditive the league  who seemed to drop off once they weren't pushing to win the league.

The 80%, as we've been through before countless times, forms part of the payment for services.

2016-17 Scarlets attendance https://www.cardiffrfcfans.com/fix.php?clubID=26&seasonID=22 6,806 (PrO winning league season)
2017-18 Scarlets attendance https://www.cardiffrfcfans.com/fix.php?clubID=26&seasonID=23 8,848 because of the Champions Cup run

So, yet again, you're writing nonsense.

Brendan wrote:

You still haven't justified why you are so upset with the IRFU for looking after their own interests.  No one disputes Leinster and Munster spend the most in the league.

Because single ownership of multiple entrants kills the league as a competition when the position of the owner is that competition is the third in their line of interests.

Brendan wrote:

But people dispute private owners who can't call on the added benefits of the Union are better off than those tied to the Unions.  If anything apart from the one backed by a large multinational the other 3 can't get the same standard of coach.

That's because of money. You can't seem to grasp the perpetual cycle of garbage the PrO causes.

Irish Londoner wrote:

You have to understand that Phil is much more concerned that the Irish teams do badly than the Welsh teams do well. In Phil's mind this is up there with the Kennedy assassination and 9/11 as one of the great conspiracy theories, even if all the other countries in the 6Ns and across the world are perfectly happy with Ireland running it's own system. It's wrong and unfair because Phil thinks it is.

Jesus, there's a lot of double guesswork going wrong from so many contributors to this board.

Yours is a truly pathetic post, juvenile in its projection

Grass ain't greener on the other side either Phil! Where there are professional leagues there will be grumbles over ownership and money no matter what.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Grass ain't greener on the other side either Phil! Where there are professional leagues there will be grumbles over ownership and money no matter what.

Untrue.

The grass is significantly greener where there is a ban on single ownership of multiple entrants, as proven by countless professional sports leagues across the world.

Ah. You get to the great promised land and you just get power struggles and clubs cheating caps etc and trying to screw each other over. Theres always something.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. You get to the great promised land and you just get power struggles and clubs cheating caps etc and trying to screw each other over. Theres always something.

Having a cap in the first place would be a step forward.

Sure, there's no utopia but when you're dealing with gerrymandering, disinterest, financial opaqueness and the rest of it, anything is better than that.

Depends if you have teams who just ignore the cap! Half want it higher, half lower. Enough loopholes to get out of anything you get caught doing. Half hate rich owners, half looking for a sheik. Some just want the power, some the silver no matter what.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Depends if you have teams who just ignore the cap! Half want it higher, half lower. Enough loopholes to get out of anything you get caught doing. Half hate rich owners, half looking for a sheik. Some just want the power,  some the silver no matter what.

Yeah, you keep hanging on to the past.

All issues that are there or will resurface. It's just what people do.

PhillBB you wont answer why any of the non irish teams are being held back by THE IRFU. If three teams have owners who don't care as much about the team rather than other interests, may be the fans should protest and get them to sell like in soccer and run the team themselves. 5k fans and sticking in £1000 a year gets them £5m plus WRU funds would do the job. Or they could get a rugby mad organisation like the WRU to stop funding the 3 teams until the owners sell.

Pro14 is back this weekend let's move back to the rugby.

Brendan wrote:PhillBB you wont answer why any of the non irish teams are being held back by THE IRFU.  

Stop lying, Brendan. I answered it here: https://www.606v2.com/t64225p100-irfu-finances-with-ecumenical-matter#3931183

Brendan wrote:If three teams have owners who don't care as much about the team rather than other interests, may be the fans should protest and get them to sell like in soccer and run the team themselves.  5k fans and sticking in £1000 a year gets them £5m plus WRU funds would do the job.  Or they could get a rugby mad organisation like the WRU to stop funding the 3 teams until the owners sell.

Pro14 is back this weekend let's move back to the rugby.

There's no money left in the WRU's coffers, Brendan. Again, this has been done to death. The WRU spends every penny it earns. You can legitimately ask why it is building a hotel, for example, or why it wastes so much money on management and administration, but there's nothing left in the coffers of the WRU.

As for the private owners, that's already been explained to you before. You seem to have a short term memory issue or you're just refusing to read before you post. To summarise: there's no point investing whilst in this dead end league.

PhilBB wrote:

Sure, there's no utopia but when you're dealing with gerrymandering, disinterest, financial opaqueness and the rest of it, anything is better than that.

Like the PRL and Saracens ?

PhilBB wrote:

Brendan wrote:PhillBB you wont answer why any of the non irish teams are being held back by THE IRFU.  

Stop lying, Brendan. I answered it here: https://www.606v2.com/t64225p100-irfu-finances-with-ecumenical-matter#3931183

Believe it or not the SRU and Benetton didn't get permission from the IRFU to up their income/spending

The WRU could pull all funding from the 3 non owned teams, they can just get players to get leave for camps written into their contract like North did.  The best supported event in regional rugby was the WRUs judgement day, imagine if every day was judgement day.  It took the WRU to do it because 4 owners couldn't do it themselves. It is interesting when you talk attendances you often overlook Judgement day.

If the private owners think it's a dead league why would Leinster moving to private ownership be a great investment. They are investing in the league not just the club. Celtic are a terrible investment compared to Bournemouth in soccer as an example

In Soccer plenty clubs like Cardiff FC have been brought up by investors not because of where the team is but where they can be.

Irish Londoner wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Sure, there's no utopia but when you're dealing with gerrymandering, disinterest, financial opaqueness and the rest of it, anything is better than that.

Like the PRL and Saracens ?

Clearly not as they were always audited by the Salary Cap Manager.

Try again.

Brendan wrote:
The WRU could pull all funding from the 3 non owned teams

Please let me know how they could do this under the terms of the contact signed in November 2018 and the terms of operation of the Professional Game Board.

Whenever you're ready....

Brendan wrote:The best supported event in regional rugby was the WRUs judgement day, imagine if every day was judgement day.  It took the WRU to do it because 4 owners couldn't do it themselves.  It is interesting when you talk attendances you often overlook Judgement day.

I don't know how you've arrived at the conclusion that the clubs themselves were not part of the organisation of Judgement Day and aren't to this day, or why you think I overlook Judgement Day. In fact, as in keeping with most of the rest of your posting, it looks like you've just completely fabricated both thoughts.

Brendan wrote:
If the private owners think it's a dead league why would Leinster moving to private ownership be a great investment.

Because CVC offers the chance of a change in league. I put that in the message I wrote to you and then had to copy to you for a second time as you clearly hadn't read / understood it the first time. Now you've asked the question again. This is mind numbing.

Brendan wrote:
In Soccer plenty clubs like Cardiff FC have been brought up by investors not because of where the team is but where they can be.

And "where they can be" is dependent upon the league they play in.

So you've just proven why investing in a team in the PrO league is a waste of resource, having spent so long not quite grasping that concept.

At least we're there now.

PhilBB wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Sure, there's no utopia but when you're dealing with gerrymandering, disinterest, financial opaqueness and the rest of it, anything is better than that.

Like the PRL and Saracens ?

Clearly not as they were always audited by the Salary Cap Manager.

Try again.

It may come as a shock to you then that Bath and Saracens were cheating the cap got a rap on the knuckles with Saracens continuing to cheat?

Pot Hale wrote:There was an interesting article published in the Sunday Indo last weekend outing the new governance structure that is mooted to be put in place in the IRFU with a more corporate structure being considered for the organisation.  

How this will flow to how the 4 branches of the Union will be governed remains to be seen.

Interesting Pot, is that available somewhere, could be a good read...

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Sure, there's no utopia but when you're dealing with gerrymandering, disinterest, financial opaqueness and the rest of it, anything is better than that.

Like the PRL and Saracens ?

Clearly not as they were always audited by the Salary Cap Manager.

Try again.

It may come as a shock to you then that Bath and Saracens were cheating the cap got a rap on the knuckles with Saracens continuing to cheat?

I'm aware of how PRL retrospectively changed the ruling on co-investments, yes. I do enjoy how this is somewhat of an ant in your pants as you constantly mention it. For a sometime viewer of Doncaster, I do wonder why.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Pot Hale wrote:There was an interesting article published in the Sunday Indo last weekend outing the new governance structure that is mooted to be put in place in the IRFU with a more corporate structure being considered for the organisation.  

How this will flow to how the 4 branches of the Union will be governed remains to be seen.

Interesting Pot, is that available somewhere, could be a good read...

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/champagne-rugby-governance-restructuring-makes-for-interesting-times-39637000.html

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Irish Londoner wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

Sure, there's no utopia but when you're dealing with gerrymandering, disinterest, financial opaqueness and the rest of it, anything is better than that.

Like the PRL and Saracens ?

Clearly not as they were always audited by the Salary Cap Manager.

Try again.

It may come as a shock to you then that Bath and Saracens were cheating the cap got a rap on the knuckles with Saracens continuing to cheat?

I'm aware of how PRL retrospectively changed the ruling on co-investments, yes. I do enjoy how this is somewhat of an ant in your pants as you constantly mention it. For a sometime viewer of Doncaster, I do wonder why.

I love rugby, so I follow it. There was no changing of the rules simply a couple.of clubs cheating. It's just to point out that theres stuff to complain about everywhere. You dislike Leinster getting funding from the irish union plenty of people dislike cheats. Would it have happened if the rfu had much tighter control: probably not. Swings and roundabouts.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
I love rugby, so I follow it. There was no changing of the rules simply a couple.of clubs cheating. It's just to point out that theres stuff to complain about everywhere. You dislike Leinster getting funding from the irish union plenty of people dislike cheats. Would it have happened if the rfu had much tighter control: probably not. Swings and roundabouts.

I don't dislike Leinster getting funding from the Irish Union, ffs.

And they did change the rules. If you don't believe me, believe Brendan Gallagher: https://twitter.com/sussexfox1/status/1312669209986560001?s=20

So you don't believe that Bath and Saracens cheated? Are you thinking it was more creative accounting and to be applauded?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you don't believe that Bath and Saracens cheated? Are you thinking it was more creative accounting and to be applauded?

One of the more infuriating parts of this forum is the inability of sum to comprehend / remember a message posted just minutes before.

Look up, mate, look up.

I'm asking your point of view phil. It's clear to me that they cheated. Interested by your contortions in defending them.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm asking your point of view phil. It's clear to me that they cheated. Interested by your contortions in defending them.

What do you determine by cheated? A deliberate act or a can 'cheated' be by accident? Let me know.

In this case deliberate and consistent acts. We can partially pat Bath on the back for quitting years back if you like!
So to step back to my question are you taking the view of well done to then for getting away with it for so long?

No 7&1/2 wrote:In this case deliberate and consistent acts. We can partially pat Bath on the back for quitting years back if you like!
So to step back to my question are you taking the view of well done to then for getting away with it for so long?

Right, in that case you must know better than Lord Dyson as he acknowledged the acts were not deliberate.

So maybe you could let me know why I should value your opinion over that of the "Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice, the second most senior judge in England and Wales, from 2012 to 2016, and a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2012" after a nine month investigation.

Or maybe you're just wrong?

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you don't believe that Bath and Saracens cheated? Are you thinking it was more creative accounting and to be applauded?

Er, I had it explained to me that PRL questioned the Bath numbers, its not clear when and how and Bath stated their interpretation of the specific rules and the PRL after arguing the toss conceded Bath had a satisfactory point and it didn't need to be argued over by expensive lawyers. At no point has there been a confirmed statement of any breach of the rules, or for that matter it was even Bath. If you want conjecture, there was debate on numbers over a number of other 'London' clubs too and I don't mean Saracens.

The outcome has been that there appears to now be agreement on all interpretations by the club's, which the PRL should have maintained on an annual basis throughout - but didnt.

Recwatcher16 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you don't believe that Bath and Saracens cheated? Are you thinking it was more creative accounting and to be applauded?

Er, I had it explained to me that PRL questioned the Bath numbers, its not clear when and how and Bath stated their interpretation of the specific rules and the PRL after arguing the toss conceded Bath had a satisfactory point and it didn't need to be argued over by expensive lawyers. At no point has there been a confirmed statement of any breach of the rules, or for that matter it was even Bath. If you want conjecture, there was debate on numbers over a number of other 'London' clubs too and I don't mean Saracens.

The outcome has been that there appears to now be agreement on all interpretations by the club's, which the PRL should have maintained on an annual basis throughout - but didnt.

Pah, facts. Who needs them when you're playing the "deliberately contrary" card at every opportunity? It's easy to do that when you stand for nothing yourself, so you don't have to justify your own views.

And, as you can see above, you can see why he plays that role as his view collapses each limited time he publishes it.

Bath and saracens cheated. Its out in the open now, no need to pretend anymore. Not sure why your want to defend it phil tbh.
Just goes to show that it's not sweetness and light in the english league.

From your responses is it right that you think fair play to them for getting away with it for so long Phil?

I just find it odd that you're so against the Irish for their choice of funding yet happy to jump into bed with people who will try to cheat you blatantly for years.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:In this case deliberate and consistent acts. We can partially pat Bath on the back for quitting years back if you like!
So to step back to my question are you taking the view of well done to then for getting away with it for so long?

Right, in that case you must know better than Lord Dyson as he acknowledged the acts were not deliberate.

So maybe you could let me know why I should value your opinion over that of the "Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice, the second most senior judge in England and Wales, from 2012 to 2016, and a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2012" after a nine month investigation.

Or maybe you're just wrong?

I see Mr No7&1/2 ignored the the fact that Lord Dyson proved nobody cheated

Therefore, Mr No7&1/2 must just like lying about it. I wonder why he'd do that?

PhilBB wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:In this case deliberate and consistent acts. We can partially pat Bath on the back for quitting years back if you like!
So to step back to my question are you taking the view of well done to then for getting away with it for so long?

Right, in that case you must know better than Lord Dyson as he acknowledged the acts were not deliberate.

So maybe you could let me know why I should value your opinion over that of the "Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice, the second most senior judge in England and Wales, from 2012 to 2016, and a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2012" after a nine month investigation.

Or maybe you're just wrong?

I see Mr No7&1/2 ignored the the fact that Lord Dyson proved nobody cheated

Therefore, Mr No7&1/2 must just like lying about it. I wonder why he'd do that?

From Premiership Rugby's own website:

"The panel, which conducted a hearing over five days in September and October 2019, was chaired by the Rt. Hon. Lord Dyson. The decision of the panel was that Saracens failed to disclose payments to players and exceeded the ceiling for payments to senior players in each of the three seasons 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The sanction imposed by the panel was a total fine of £5.36 million and a deduction of 35 league points.

The panel also rejected the club’s challenge on competition law grounds to the validity of the regulations. In setting out its conclusions, the panel noted that the salary cap operates in a pro-competitive manner by promoting the objectives of ensuring the financial viability of clubs, controlling inflationary pressures, providing a level playing field, ensuring a competitive league and enabling clubs to compete in European competitions."

So if they hadn't cheated what were they found guilty of?

Irish Londoner wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:In this case deliberate and consistent acts. We can partially pat Bath on the back for quitting years back if you like!
So to step back to my question are you taking the view of well done to then for getting away with it for so long?

Right, in that case you must know better than Lord Dyson as he acknowledged the acts were not deliberate.

So maybe you could let me know why I should value your opinion over that of the "Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice, the second most senior judge in England and Wales, from 2012 to 2016, and a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2012" after a nine month investigation.

Or maybe you're just wrong?

I see Mr No7&1/2 ignored the the fact that Lord Dyson proved nobody cheated

Therefore, Mr No7&1/2 must just like lying about it. I wonder why he'd do that?

From Premiership Rugby's own website:

"The panel, which conducted a hearing over five days in September and October 2019, was chaired by the Rt. Hon. Lord Dyson. The decision of the panel was that Saracens failed to disclose payments to players and exceeded the ceiling for payments to senior players in each of the three seasons 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. The sanction imposed by the panel was a total fine of £5.36 million and a deduction of 35 league points.

The panel also rejected the club’s challenge on competition law grounds to the validity of the regulations. In setting out its conclusions, the panel noted that the salary cap operates in a pro-competitive manner by promoting the objectives of ensuring the financial viability of clubs, controlling inflationary pressures, providing a level playing field, ensuring a competitive league and enabling clubs to compete in European competitions."

So if they hadn't cheated what were they found guilty of?

Did you not read the posts leading up to your own? Does nobody do this on this site? Does nobody follow the context of the flow of posts? It seems not. And it's infuriating.

No71&2 used the word deliberate. Dyson noted the acts were not deliberate in order to cheat the cap. So, by No71&2's OWN DEFINITION, Saracens didn't cheat.

Why does this even need to be explained?

PhilBB wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:In this case deliberate and consistent acts. We can partially pat Bath on the back for quitting years back if you like!
So to step back to my question are you taking the view of well done to then for getting away with it for so long?

Right, in that case you must know better than Lord Dyson as he acknowledged the acts were not deliberate.

So maybe you could let me know why I should value your opinion over that of the "Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice, the second most senior judge in England and Wales, from 2012 to 2016, and a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2012" after a nine month investigation.

Or maybe you're just wrong?

I see Mr No7&1/2 ignored the the fact that Lord Dyson proved nobody cheated

Therefore, Mr No7&1/2 must just like lying about it. I wonder why he'd do that?

I mean they did cheat the cap for years. You're also smart enough to know that conclusions from reviews etc are still simply a matter of opinion/what has been advised by legal advice etc. For a sporting example look at Hillsborough and how the truth didnt come out the first couple of times around.

You're sidestepping the main point though. You're happy with the cheating from those 2 clubs? Do you think fair enough they got away with it for so long? As above I just find it odd you're so against the irish and Scottish finances yet ignore the fact the wru pay for players for the welsh teams and some English clubs just ignore rules brought in by agreement.

No 7&1/2 wrote:In this case deliberate and consistent acts. We can partially pat Bath on the back for quitting years back if you like!
So to step back to my question are you taking the view of well done to then for getting away with it for so long?

https://news.sky.com/story/revealed-how-saracens-broke-rugbys-salary-cap-rules-11915269 -> "The disciplinary panel, led by Lord Dyson, accepted that Saracens' breaches of the regulations were "not deliberate" and had advised against their relegation, believing it would be a disproportionate punishment."

http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2020/01/30/saracens-premiership-rugby-decision-judgment-lord-dyson-arbitration-salary-cap-breach/ -> From RUGBY AND THE LAW: "Overall, the Decision appears legally accurate and well-reasoned. Nonetheless, it is possible to have some sympathy for Saracens. Much of the media reporting has been vilifying of the club and, though certain transactions do appear some way below board, there are others over which Saracens may well feel aggrieved."

Furthermore: "That these co-investments are considered Salary seems entirely appropriate and the fact that they were concealed from the SCM makes it difficult to have any sympathy for the club. However, the fact Mr Wray has other similar co-investments with players “where the money is invested directly in the property”, which are “not treated as Salary by Mr Rogers”, does at least raise an eyebrow (para 169). The only material difference between the Capital Contributions and these other co-investments appears to be the reduced risk for the player of the joint venture structure. Indeed, some have suggested that this alternative mechanism may simply have been more tax efficient for Mr Wray."

And (to prove a retrospective rule change, which No7&1/2 claimed didn't happen): "The Panel considered it unnecessary to express a view on whether there was a “concerted and deliberate attempt to create structures that supposedly take that reward outside the ambit of Salary” (para 170) but, given the existence of similar and accepted co-investments, this suggestion seems doubtful. Nonetheless, the club was undoubtedly negligent in failing to disclose the arrangements or seek the SCM’s approval."

And more (to show the inconsistency in that retrospective decision: "However, there seems to be a further inconsistency. In SCY 2015/16, the 20% contribution by Wray and Silvester was deemed Salary. However, it was valued at a rate of 3% per annum – it was not dealt with as a single lump sum. Future events must have been taken into account in valuing the benefit given to Ashton in that SCY. Yet, when the time came for Ashton to buy out the 20% stake, it was treated as a single lump sum of Salary. The actual benefit to the player from the initial purchase and throughout the period of deferred repayment remained the same – i.e. he received property without having to pay for it – albeit that he started to buy some of it back. It is suggested that this is inconsistent. Either the whole initial 20% contribution should have been considered Salary in 2015, or the benefit received under the Supplemental Deed should have been apportioned pro rata. This was not a point raised by Saracens’ lawyers, but it may well give the club grounds for dissatisfaction."


So the actual facts AND the view of Lord Dyson are nowhere near the interpretation of events by "No7&1/2" in any way shape or form.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
I mean they did cheat the cap for years. You're also smart enough to know that conclusions from reviews etc are still simply a matter of opinion/what has been advised by legal advice etc. For a sporting example look at Hillsborough and how the truth didnt come out the first couple of times around.

You're sidestepping the main point though. You're happy with the cheating from those 2 clubs? Do you think fair enough they got away with it for so long? As above I just find it odd you're so against the irish and Scottish finances yet ignore the fact the wru pay for players for the welsh teams and some English clubs just ignore rules brought in by agreement.

The main point, as proven above and in law, is that they didn't 'cheat'. The main point is that you keep repeating this lie just in order to be contrary and silly. That's the main point.

And then you just lied some more with your final sentence.

I appreciate that your deliberate contrary act has backfired on you enormously in recent weeks so I can see why you're upset, but resorting to outright lies isn't a good look. I appreciate that you're lying just to get a reaction because, let's face it, getting a reaction is your sole MO here. However, it's not working for you.

All that's happened is that you've been exposed for lying and to try to hide that you're doubling and tripling down on the lies.

Which, of course, is really poor form.

So go and read the first Hillsborough ruling Phil. They are the real truth then? Maybe you prefer the Suns take on that as well? I know you're not naive.

So while you try to turn this into another semantics battle and you'll dance your jig have you had a thought on if you're happy with Saracens breaking the cap for several years? Is it just a case of well done to them while holding a grudge against irish and Scottish teams for obeying the rules while being better than Cardiff?

Phil's happy that English clubs break the rules. But really annoyed the Irish play by them then. Ok.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So go and read the first Hillsborough ruling Phil. They are the real truth then? Maybe you prefer the Suns take on that as well? I know you're not naive.

So while you try to turn this into another semantics  battle and you'll dance your jig have you had a thought on if you're happy with Saracens breaking the cap for several years? Is it just a case of well done to them while holding a grudge against irish and Scottish teams for obeying the rules while being better than Cardiff?

Whatabouttery is the last enclave of a fraud.

You've had the rug pulled from underneath you, you've been exposed as a liar and a fraud, all just because you tried to get a reaction.

Really, really poor form from you.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Phil's happy that English clubs break the rules. But really annoyed the Irish play by them then. Ok.

And two more lies.

Bless.

You are smarting.

How about you stop stinking up threads with lies?