Wage cap - Updated with news on Saracens Punishment

First topic message reminder :

Saracens have made the following statement.
"
Club Statement - Co-investment partnerships between the Saracens owner and players.

Following a newspaper article, the Club would like to make the following statement: 

“Firstly, we would like to reiterate that the Club readily complies with Premiership Rugby salary regulations and information relating to remuneration is declared to the salary cap manager. Although co-investment partnerships between owners and players are not a prerequisite of the salary regulations, we disclose these transactions to Premiership Rugby and will continue to do so. 

“Currently, 57% of the men’s squad is comprised of home grown talent - the highest in the Premiership. These players not only produce results on the pitch, they help entitle the Club to £1.2m in credits above the baseline salary cap from the RFU and Premiership Rugby. This is a direct result of our significant investment in the Saracens Academy which nurtures and develops Saracens and England players of the future. 

“A professional playing career in rugby can be short. We have a responsibility to help our players fulfil their potential, not just on the pitch but off it too.  It is why our Academy incorporates an education programme that actively prepares players for life beyond the sport. We are encouraged that many of our senior players are exploring business opportunities away from rugby.”

To me it just seems to be we're doing good work for the England team so don't pry!

But it's Bath and Saracens that broke the cap. Saracens have had the gall to consistently rub the other clubs noses in it hence the response. If you could be bothered to find that 2015 thread you'd see a number of responses from myself saying wait for the results to be released. Since that world cup stitch up though I have a feeling we'll e long dead for it to be released. They cheated and got away with it. They're now playing it and taking the Mick.

Red lines only work if enforced.  Unless the league punishes teams for breaking it nothing will change.

The league needs to be proactive in confirming how certain teams can afford their squads.  If the league sits back and accepts things that the club's say then things will carry on as they are.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But it's Bath and Saracens that broke the cap. Saracens have had the gall to consistently rub the other clubs noses in it hence the response. If you could be bothered to find that 2015 thread you'd see a number of responses from myself saying wait for the results to be released. Since that world cup stitch up though I have a feeling we'll e long dead for it to be released. They cheated and got away with it. They're now playing it and taking the Mick.

I can remember that last thread, where beshocked was getting all wound up.

And agian, I will still tell you, there is no concrete evidence that they have done anything wrong. If you can find that evidence then there will be a lot of people who would much appreciate taking it from you.

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:But it's Bath and Saracens that broke the cap. Saracens have had the gall to consistently rub the other clubs noses in it hence the response. If you could be bothered to find that 2015 thread you'd see a number of responses from myself saying wait for the results to be released. Since that world cup stitch up though I have a feeling we'll e long dead for it to be released. They cheated and got away with it. They're now playing it and taking the Mick.

I can remember that last thread, where beshocked was getting all wound up.

And agian, I will still tell you, there is no concrete evidence that they have done anything wrong. If you can find that evidence then there will be a lot of people who would much appreciate taking it from you.

Oh the irony

Saracens owner has invested in companies with players, this is something that has a financial benefit to the players. The wage cap is essentially meant to include anything that has a direct financial benefit to the players based on their playing for the club

Didn't the Gloucester chairman pretty much confirm the previous transgressions?

LordDowlais wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:But it's Bath and Saracens that broke the cap. Saracens have had the gall to consistently rub the other clubs noses in it hence the response. If you could be bothered to find that 2015 thread you'd see a number of responses from myself saying wait for the results to be released. Since that world cup stitch up though I have a feeling we'll e long dead for it to be released. They cheated and got away with it. They're now playing it and taking the Mick.

I can remember that last thread, where beshocked was getting all wound up.

And agian, I will still tell you, there is no concrete evidence that they have done anything wrong. If you can find that evidence then there will be a lot of people who would much appreciate taking it from you.

So like beshocked, you also think that a financial settlement was paid by Saracens and Bath despite them not doing anything wrong. It was merely out of the goodness of Bruce and Nigel's hearts, the cuddly teddy bears that they are.

BamBam wrote:So like beshocked, you also think that a financial settlement was paid by Saracens and Bath despite them not doing anything wrong. It was merely out of the goodness of Bruce and Nigel's hearts, the cuddly teddy bears that they are.

No for Gods sake.

Look we all know what we "think" has gone on here, and we can all make our own minds up about what has happened.

But what none of us can say is, that they "have" done anything wrong, because we do not know. Plain and simple.

There is no evidence what so ever that anything has been done wrong. Also, if we all take what we reckon as fact, then why haven't Sarries been punished.

Does this now go even deeper ? Is there some sort of cover up ? If so, then who punishes the people in charge ?

I think you need to take into consideration what you said on another thread about 1/4 of what is written on here is nonsense. You and many other have accused me of a conspiracy theorist on other threads, then you come on here and make up conspiracies of your own.

Talk about being hypocritical.

"The guilty parties" weren't punished because they paid a financial settlement. Is that clear enough? You can call it a cover up or you can call it a settlement.

There is no need to punish anyone in charge, because whether under duress or not, the PRL members accepted the financial settlement in lieu of any other punishment for "the guilty parties"

If those facts were not true, do you not think "Bruce and Nigel" would be out swinging and trying to sue for libel against the newspapers who printed that their was a settlement?

LD, simple question for you

Why would numerous national newspapers publish that they had breached the cap if it wasn't true?

LordDowlais wrote:

There is no evidence what so ever that anything has been done wrong. Also, if we all take what we reckon as fact, then why haven't Sarries been punished.

Are you talking about the current investigation, or the one in 2015/15?

If current then as it is ongoing we have to wait and hope that this time there is transparency. Based on past behaviour I doubt we will see the transparency we would want, but at least this time we have been officially informed of an investigation.

If we are talking about the old case Sarries were actually fined. I believe evidence for this is available in old Companies House submissions. However (and this is anecdotal based on my relations with someone who was party to the discussions) due to bullying behaviour it was agreed that this would be kept quiet. Even the existence of the investigation was meant to be silent but was leaked by enough people.

So has the evidence of Sarries past wrong doings been made public - no, however the fact they paid a fine, the leaks and the evidence from Walkinshaw would be sufficient to persuade a civil court. It should also be noticed that you would expect that if innocent, Sarries would have sued papers and ex-owners who have categorically called them cheats.

Oops yeah not fined but agreed to pay an extraordinary financial settlement. (ie a fine  )

LondonTiger wrote:It should also be noticed that you would expect that if innocent, Sarries would have sued papers and ex-owners who have categorically called them cheats.

It's also been reported in numerous articles that either Wray / Craig or both threatened to open court proceedings citing "restraint of trade". It's clear they believe that they'd win any court proceedings.

LondonTiger wrote:
If current then as it is ongoing we have to wait and hope that this time there is transparency.

Well it would seem they are guilty given this

Premiership Rugby said on Wednesday night that Saracens had not disclosed details of all of their arrangements when they were first reported in March.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:It should also be noticed that you would expect that if innocent, Sarries would have sued papers and ex-owners who have categorically called them cheats.

It's also been reported in numerous articles that either Wray / Craig or both threatened to open court proceedings citing "restraint of trade". It's clear they believe that they'd win any court proceedings.

Really? Which articles?

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:It should also be noticed that you would expect that if innocent, Sarries would have sued papers and ex-owners who have categorically called them cheats.

It's also been reported in numerous articles that either Wray / Craig or both threatened to open court proceedings citing "restraint of trade". It's clear they believe that they'd win any court proceedings.

That was an allegation, but not the reason that things were kept confidential.

Not sure they would have won such a case as they signed up to a specific agreement willingly. The issue was that by dragging things out the accused could have deprived other clubs of significant cash flow, probably causing 1 or 2 to go bust before they received their TV monies. What they coudl have won on was the technicality that they were allegedly manipulating loopholes where matters were not clarified in the written codicil as they are now. 

Sarries (less so Bath) have a very professional set up. That can be seen in the way they build a squad and prepare, in the development of their academy and the obvious team spirit within the club. However they are also willing to completely stretch the boundaries off the field (like all top teams they do the same on the field).

LondonTiger wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:It should also be noticed that you would expect that if innocent, Sarries would have sued papers and ex-owners who have categorically called them cheats.

It's also been reported in numerous articles that either Wray / Craig or both threatened to open court proceedings citing "restraint of trade". It's clear they believe that they'd win any court proceedings.

That was an allegation, but not the reason that things were kept confidential.

Not sure they would have won such a case as they signed up to a specific agreement willingly. The issue was that by dragging things out the accused could have deprived other clubs of significant cash flow, probably causing 1 or 2 to go bust before they received their TV monies. What they coudl have won on was the technicality that they were allegedly manipulating loopholes where matters were not clarified in the written codicil as they are now. 

Sarries (less so Bath) have a very professional set up. That can be seen in the way they build a squad and prepare, in the development of their academy and the obvious team spirit within the club. However they are also willing to completely stretch the boundaries off the field (like all top teams they do the same on the field).

LT, I doubt they would have won. RF said anyone who thought they wouldn't was lacking in brain cells

Yet to hear what they have to say on the Lisbon Treat and the EUs framework on the matter which is quite clear

Good governance in sport is a condition for the autonomy and self-regulation of sport organisations. While it is not possible to define a single model of governance in European sport across different disciplines and in view of various national differences, the Commission considers that there are inter-linked principles that underpin sport governance at European level, such as autonomy within the limits of the law, democracy, transparency and accountability in decision-making, and inclusiveness in the representation of interested stakeholders. Good governance in sport is a condition for addressing challenges regarding sport and the EU legal framework.

LondonTiger wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:It should also be noticed that you would expect that if innocent, Sarries would have sued papers and ex-owners who have categorically called them cheats.

It's also been reported in numerous articles that either Wray / Craig or both threatened to open court proceedings citing "restraint of trade". It's clear they believe that they'd win any court proceedings.

That was an allegation, but not the reason that things were kept confidential.

Not sure they would have won such a case as they signed up to a specific agreement willingly. The issue was that by dragging things out the accused could have deprived other clubs of significant cash flow, probably causing 1 or 2 to go bust before they received their TV monies. What they coudl have won on was the technicality that they were allegedly manipulating loopholes where matters were not clarified in the written codicil as they are now. 

Sarries (less so Bath) have a very professional set up. That can be seen in the way they build a squad and prepare, in the development of their academy and the obvious team spirit within the club. However they are also willing to completely stretch the boundaries off the field (like all top teams they do the same on the field).

Can't disagree with much of that. Any club breaking the rules should be punished. It seems they were.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:It should also be noticed that you would expect that if innocent, Sarries would have sued papers and ex-owners who have categorically called them cheats.

It's also been reported in numerous articles that either Wray / Craig or both threatened to open court proceedings citing "restraint of trade". It's clear they believe that they'd win any court proceedings.

Saracens are trying to bully the league. clubs and PRL, "We can afford to take this to court and get in high powered lawyers, and even if /when we lose we'll have dragged the good name of the sport and English rugby into the mud".

Incidentally if they did win under restraint of trade it's opening a huge can of legal worms across the whole of sport in the same vein as the Bosman decision.

Irish Londoner wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:It should also be noticed that you would expect that if innocent, Sarries would have sued papers and ex-owners who have categorically called them cheats.

It's also been reported in numerous articles that either Wray / Craig or both threatened to open court proceedings citing "restraint of trade". It's clear they believe that they'd win any court proceedings.

Saracens are trying to bully the league. clubs and PRL, "We can afford to take this to court and get in high powered lawyers, and even if /when we lose we'll have dragged the good name of the sport and English rugby into the mud".

Incidentally if they did win under restraint of trade it's opening a huge can of legal worms across the whole of sport in the same vein as the Bosman decision.

Well maybe, but they might also be speaking sense. They might actually have a point if they feel they have done everything within the rules and it is a "grey area" that has been capitalised on. French rugby is audited extremely heavily - yet the French clubs seemingly do similar things to Saracens and also have a cap.

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:It should also be noticed that you would expect that if innocent, Sarries would have sued papers and ex-owners who have categorically called them cheats.

It's also been reported in numerous articles that either Wray / Craig or both threatened to open court proceedings citing "restraint of trade". It's clear they believe that they'd win any court proceedings.

The restraint of trade thing is interesting. In football, there have been various leaks insinuating that Man City avoided expulsion from European football for breaking the FFP rules by threatening to tie UEFA up in legal battles for 10+ years, by virtue of having the bottomless Abu Dhabi cash pit to fund the legal battle

It doesn't seem like the Saracens/Bath threats are any different based on the rumours. Its the richest owners bullying an organisation (UEFA) or other teams (PRL) by using their financial muscle. I don't think UEFA/PRL were completely wrong to accept the settlements as they did, but for people like beshocked or LD to still claim that there is no evidence is a fairly ludicrous attitude

BamBam wrote:

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:It should also be noticed that you would expect that if innocent, Sarries would have sued papers and ex-owners who have categorically called them cheats.

It's also been reported in numerous articles that either Wray / Craig or both threatened to open court proceedings citing "restraint of trade". It's clear they believe that they'd win any court proceedings.

The restraint of trade thing is interesting. In football, there have been various leaks insinuating that Man City avoided expulsion from European football for breaking the FFP rules by threatening to tie UEFA up in legal battles for 10+ years, by virtue of having the bottomless Abu Dhabi cash pit to fund the legal battle

It doesn't seem like the Saracens/Bath threats are any different based on the rumours. Its the richest owners bullying an organisation (UEFA) or other teams (PRL) by using their financial muscle. I don't think UEFA/PRL were completely wrong to accept the settlements as they did, but for people like beshocked or LD to still claim that there is no evidence is a fairly ludicrous attitude

Except

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2015/jul/22/eu-supreme-court-rejects-ffp-challenge-uefa

Yup, but this is what happened at the time - https://www.apnews.com/171b8eae53ea475e9a29569497f144f8

An internal email sent by City lawyer Simon Cliff recalled an exchange between Al Mubarak and Infantino, the documents showed.

“Khaldoon said he would rather spend 30 million on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue them for the next 10 years,” Cliff wrote, adding that this was a chance “to avoid the destruction of their rules and organization.”

He could spend it on lawyers but doesn't mean it would get to court, for City to take action they'd have to use CAS and once they rule that's the end of it and the likelihood of them taking the case on would be minimal given the ruling

True, I was just using City as a comparison in parallel to what it appears Saracens/Bath threatened in the AP

All three were apparently successful at avoiding points deductions/expulsions due to the threat of using their financial muscle in legal action

marty2086 wrote:LD, simple question for you

Why would numerous national newspapers publish that they had breached the cap if it wasn't true?

I asked this question on another thread about another newspaper article, and you said the journalist was making things up.

Only you can be like this.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:LD, simple question for you

Why would numerous national newspapers publish that they had breached the cap if it wasn't true?

I asked this question on another thread about another newspaper article, and you said the journalist was making things up.

Only you can be like this.

Ha. It's amazing how people backup their stories via press articles. But then refuse to believe other press articles that don't suit their agenda.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:LD, simple question for you

Why would numerous national newspapers publish that they had breached the cap if it wasn't true?

I asked this question on another thread about another newspaper article, and you said the journalist was making things up.

Only you can be like this.

Like what?

Pointing out you are being contradictory

You are asking people for proof to back up their claims here yet offered no such thing to support your own

RugbyFan100 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:LD, simple question for you

Why would numerous national newspapers publish that they had breached the cap if it wasn't true?

I asked this question on another thread about another newspaper article, and you said the journalist was making things up.

Only you can be like this.

Ha. It's amazing how people backup their stories via press articles. But then refuse to believe other press articles that don't suit their agenda.

LD does that a lot, puts more weight into AN OPINION PIECE than actual new reports

Guys, we all know that Saracens have been up to something perhaps a little underhanded here.

But the facts are, we have no proof. We haven't. There is no two ways about it. None of us know all the details.

I get the fact that we can discuss things like this, but to go all out and say they are all guilty of this that and the other is just insane.

The law of our land is innocent until proven guilty. The current issue is still under investigation. Let these people investigating get their evidence before we go all judge, jury and executioner about it all.

Something does not seem right, that is for sure, but that does not mean they are guilty of anything.

what is the point

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:LD, simple question for you

Why would numerous national newspapers publish that they had breached the cap if it wasn't true?

I asked this question on another thread about another newspaper article, and you said the journalist was making things up.

Only you can be like this.

Like what?

Pointing out you are being contradictory

You are asking people for proof to back up their claims here yet offered no such thing to support your own

What proof have I asked for ? I have have said on this very thread, THERE IS NO PROOF.

Trying to meander the debate in another direction now are you, because you might have to rethink your side of the debate. Also, for the record, I am not claiming you are wrong on this either, I am just saying we have no proof.

Except no one is asking to be judge and jury, they are offering their opinions

BamBam wrote: what is the point

Of you on here ?

Yes I have asked that question to myself and others many a time.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:LD, simple question for you

Why would numerous national newspapers publish that they had breached the cap if it wasn't true?

I asked this question on another thread about another newspaper article, and you said the journalist was making things up.

Only you can be like this.

Like what?

Pointing out you are being contradictory

You are asking people for proof to back up their claims here yet offered no such thing to support your own

What proof have I asked for ? I have have said on this very thread, THERE IS NO PROOF.

Trying to meander the debate in another direction now are you, because you might have to rethink your side of the debate. Also, for the record, I am not claiming you are wrong on this either, I am just saying we have no proof.

We do have proof

marty2086 wrote:Except no one is asking to be judge and jury, they are offering their opinions

No they are not.

I am not going to quote everybody on here, but they are all saying that Sarries have actually broken the wage cap. Not that the think they have, or reckon they have, they have said that they have outright broken the cap.

Quite the accusation without the proof to go with it.

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:LD, simple question for you

Why would numerous national newspapers publish that they had breached the cap if it wasn't true?

I asked this question on another thread about another newspaper article, and you said the journalist was making things up.

Only you can be like this.

Like what?

Pointing out you are being contradictory

You are asking people for proof to back up their claims here yet offered no such thing to support your own

What proof have I asked for ? I have have said on this very thread, THERE IS NO PROOF.

Trying to meander the debate in another direction now are you, because you might have to rethink your side of the debate. Also, for the record, I am not claiming you are wrong on this either, I am just saying we have no proof.

We do have proof

Go on then, share it with us. Oh and whilst your at it, hand over all this proof to the people that are investigating, you would save them a hell of a lot of time.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:LD, simple question for you

Why would numerous national newspapers publish that they had breached the cap if it wasn't true?

I asked this question on another thread about another newspaper article, and you said the journalist was making things up.

Only you can be like this.

Like what?

Pointing out you are being contradictory

You are asking people for proof to back up their claims here yet offered no such thing to support your own

What proof have I asked for ? I have have said on this very thread, THERE IS NO PROOF.

Trying to meander the debate in another direction now are you, because you might have to rethink your side of the debate. Also, for the record, I am not claiming you are wrong on this either, I am just saying we have no proof.

We do have proof

Go on then, share it with us. Oh and whilst your at it, hand over all this proof to the people that are investigating, you would save them a hell of a lot of time.

Still investigating doesn't mean there isn't proof, it means PRL haven't finished investigating and issued judgement on the matter

There are the numerous legal documents available online showing the partnerships exist, there are the statements by Saracens saying they exist along with other arrangements, statements from some who were part of all of it talking about the benefits they received, there are statements from Premiership Rugby saying the arrangements were never reported to them, there is also a statement from Saracens saying there was a minor internal reporting failure in regards to the arrangements despite saying they had reported it all to PRL

There are two separate breaches being discussed.

1. The one back in 2014/2015, which was closed after a FINANCIAL SETTLEMENT was paid by the accused clubs. This one saw the accused clubs threaten to tie league and PRL up in endless legal battles if they were punished, so there was a settlement.

2. The current one, which came out at the end of last year. This one is still being investigated, so as it stands there is no proof

Does that make it simple enough for you LD? Do you agree that settlement of a case most likely constitutes liability?

But none of those reports have said what they are paying their players for playing rugby. There is a grey area that lets them get away with what they are doing. Unfortunately, that makes them not guilty.

If things were done proper in the first place, then I have no doubt what so ever that Saracens would more than likely be banged to rights.

Until I see I see a big head line in the news, say Saracens are guilty, then sorry, I will not say they are guilty of anything.

BamBam wrote:Do you agree that settlement of a case most likely constitutes liability?

Do you know what that settlement was payed for ? Or do you think you know ?

LordDowlais wrote:But none of those reports have said what they are paying their players for playing rugby. There is a grey area that lets them get away with what they are doing. Unfortunately, that makes them not guilty.

If things were done proper in the first place, then I have no doubt what so ever that Saracens would more than likely be banged to rights.

Until I see I see a big head line in the news, say Saracens are guilty, then sorry, I will not say they are guilty of anything.

So because you don't understand it all there isn't any proof?

The salary cap isn't just about paying people to play rugby, it's about the benefits directly derived from playing for the club.

All clubs have to report arrangements between directors/sponsors/partners/ambassadors and any players. Saracens haven't reported it, they and PRL have publically stated this...guess that's not proof they have failed to adhere to the rules of the cap

Also it's not just Sarries who are doing this, other clubs are at it to and makes a mockery of the cap and is essentially financial doping

marty2086 wrote:So because you don't understand it all there isn't any proof?

Why have you come to the conclusion that I do not understand anything ?

What would you say, if I said I think you are English ?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:So because you don't understand it all there isn't any proof?

Why have you come to the conclusion that I do not understand anything ?

What would you say, if I said I think you are English ?

When you say things like

But none of those reports have said what they are paying their players for playing rugby

A basic understanding of it all would mean that's not what it's actually about

I think what will be most interesting is that Sarries this time seem to be very upfront about what they are doing which means they most likely think that joint ventures that can be loss making will be deemed as not part of the cap.  I assume this as if they were worried it would be alot harder to have the information rather than from Wrays own words.

If it is deemed to be outside the cap then it makes the cap worthless.  If in the cap it could open a can of worms as to which joint ventures would be considered part of the cap or not.  Would players, clubs and owners need to register all joint ventures they enter into.  Would it include for example if Daly and Sarries started a joint venture tomorrow as this joint venture would have started before he becomes a Sarries player.  Or if Farrell and Sarries agreed to a joint venture that would start upon leaving the club in lieu of services rendered.

marty2086 wrote:A basic understanding of it all would mean that's not what it's actually about

None of the report says that player X earns that amount of money for playing rugby. They say they get paid extras for doing and achieving other things and joint ventures. That's the grey area unfortunately.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:A basic understanding of it all would mean that's not what it's actually about

None of the report says that player X earns that amount of money for playing rugby. They say they get paid extras for doing and achieving other things. That's the grey area unfortunately.

Except it's not a grey area as has already been pointed out to you

Brendan wrote:If it is deemed to be outside the cap then it makes the cap worthless. If in the cap it could open a can of worms as to which joint ventures would be considered part of the cap or not. Would players, clubs and owners need to register all joint ventures they enter into. Would it include for example if Daly and Sarries started a joint venture tomorrow as this joint venture would have started before he becomes a Sarries player. Or if Farrell and Sarries agreed to a joint venture that would start upon leaving the club in lieu of services rendered.

This is spot on, and it does not make Saracens guilty, it a loop hole, grey area, whatever you want to call it. Exploiting this might not be right, but it does not make them guilty.

LordDowlais wrote:

BamBam wrote:Do you agree that settlement of a case most likely constitutes liability?

Do you know what that settlement was payed for ? Or do you think you know ?

Well let's have a think.

Premiership Rugby were investigating potential breaches of the salary cap.
10 teams came out and said they were not being investigated
2 teams did not

Mark McCafferty then said

“There were issues we were pursuing which were potentially in the breach category,” added McCafferty who, bound by a confidentiality clause, was able to speak only in the abstract.

“There were substantially different legal opinions and it became less than straightforward.

“We are not talking about loopholes but access to information and whether certain commercial contracts should be included in the calculation or not, which is where the differing legal opinion came in. It is not a legal requirement for us to have a salary cap, but one the clubs choose to have to help manage costs.

“We have reached a settlement which is a commercial agreement between two parties which does what it says, settles differences. It does not amount to a fine because that implies a sanction and there have been no breaches. I cannot get into the nature of the settlement. When you get to a point in any commercial relationship where there is a difference of views between two parties, an option is always to settle without one part being right and the other wrong, otherwise you are into a prolonged dispute. We are confident we have resolved the differences and we move on.

So they were "pursuing issues which were potentially in the breach category", but there were "substantially different legal opinions and it became less than straightforward".

They then "reached a settlement which is a commercial agreement between two parties which does what it says, settles differences"

I'm putting 2 and 2 together, and assuming the settlement was in respect of the "issues that were potentially in the breach category"

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:But none of those reports have said what they are paying their players for playing rugby. There is a grey area that lets them get away with what they are doing. Unfortunately, that makes them not guilty.

If things were done proper in the first place, then I have no doubt what so ever that Saracens would more than likely be banged to rights.

Until I see I see a big head line in the news, say Saracens are guilty, then sorry, I will not say they are guilty of anything.

So because you don't understand it all there isn't any proof?

The salary cap isn't just about paying people to play rugby, it's about the benefits directly derived from playing for the club.

All clubs have to report arrangements between directors/sponsors/partners/ambassadors and any players. Saracens haven't reported it, they and PRL have publically stated this...guess that's not proof they have failed to adhere to the rules of the cap

Also it's not just Sarries who are doing this, other clubs are at it to and makes a mockery of the cap and is essentially financial doping

Some of the players who would of been in talks with Sarries and told about these off the books deals surely went back to their clubs they were negotiating with and ask for a simillar deal.  Agents of players at Sarries must try get simillar deals for none Sarries players, or else they a rubbish agents.  If the agents didn't know I wonder if they will be looking for their slice of the pie if deemed part of the cap.

I wonder if this is how it came to light.

Brendan wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:But none of those reports have said what they are paying their players for playing rugby. There is a grey area that lets them get away with what they are doing. Unfortunately, that makes them not guilty.

If things were done proper in the first place, then I have no doubt what so ever that Saracens would more than likely be banged to rights.

Until I see I see a big head line in the news, say Saracens are guilty, then sorry, I will not say they are guilty of anything.

So because you don't understand it all there isn't any proof?

The salary cap isn't just about paying people to play rugby, it's about the benefits directly derived from playing for the club.

All clubs have to report arrangements between directors/sponsors/partners/ambassadors and any players. Saracens haven't reported it, they and PRL have publically stated this...guess that's not proof they have failed to adhere to the rules of the cap

Also it's not just Sarries who are doing this, other clubs are at it to and makes a mockery of the cap and is essentially financial doping

Some of the players who would of been in talks with Sarries and told about these off the books deals surely went back to their clubs they were negotiating with and ask for a simillar deal.  Agents of players at Sarries must try get simillar deals for none Sarries players, or else they a rubbish agents.  If the agents didn't know I wonder if they will be looking for their slice of the pie if deemed part of the cap.

I wonder if this is how it came to light.

I posted tweets from Martin St Quinton earlier in the thread, he said other owners told him about it and think he was told everyone is doing it

marty2086 wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:A basic understanding of it all would mean that's not what it's actually about

None of the report says that player X earns that amount of money for playing rugby. They say they get paid extras for doing and achieving other things. That's the grey area unfortunately.

Except it's not a grey area as has already been pointed out to you

By Who ? How is it not a grey area ?

Perhaps Itoje gets paid 100K for walking around with Nigel Wray's logo on his jumper everyday. Perhaps Farrell gets paid a few quid for driving around in a car with logos all over it. I don't know, and neither do you. It stinks, but it does not make them guilty of anything.

Somebody brought Man City up earlier as an example, they have got around FFP by sponsoring their own stadium with a market price that nobody else in the world would ever offer, it wrong, it stinks, but they have found a loophole and they exploited it, that does not make them guilty.