Wage cap - Updated with news on Saracens Punishment

by No 7&1/2 Tue 05 Mar 2019, 9:30 am

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!

by BamBam Thu 02 May 2019, 12:26 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
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.

It does though. Read the rules

by LordDowlais Thu 02 May 2019, 12:29 pm

BamBam wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
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.

It does though. Read the rules

Where is Man City's punishment then ? I have not seen them deducted points, transfer bans, kicked out of European competitions, or fined.

by Brendan Thu 02 May 2019, 12:37 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
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.

Is there currently a massive investigation going on with Man City in relation to business activities that could still get them. I am sure part of it is to do with who actually pays that sponsorship money as the sponsor was only paying a small amount.

by LordDowlais Thu 02 May 2019, 12:43 pm

Brendan wrote:Is there currently a massive investigation going on with Man City in relation to business activities that could still get them. I am sure part of it is to do with who actually pays that sponsorship money as the sponsor was only paying a small amount.

I don't know to be honest, but even if they were under investigation, they still have the right to claim innocence until they are proven to be guilty.

I have checked, and they are under investigation, but that is for transfers of under age players and third party ownership of players.

by Brendan Thu 02 May 2019, 12:43 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
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.

Sorry but I haven't said Sarries weren't guilty and in 2015 they were very tight lipped and paid compensation for errors made.

What you quoted of mine is complications that will need to be ironed out not me saying they aren't guilty.

by LordDowlais Thu 02 May 2019, 12:45 pm

Brendan wrote:Sorry but I haven't said Sarries weren't guilty and in 2015 they were very tight lipped and paid compensation for errors made.

What you quoted of mine is complications that will need to be ironed out not me saying they aren't guilty.

I know.

by marty2086 Thu 02 May 2019, 12:46 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
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.

Because they were meant to report it, they didn't, this is all public. That is one breach we know off

Whether they have overspent is still being investigated and may take time since it seems it has went on for a while and guys like Brad Barritt, Jim Hamilton, Kelly Brown, Jamie George who have all set up companies with assistance from Wray.

by LordDowlais Thu 02 May 2019, 12:50 pm

marty, if there is anything in the rules that say players cannot earn extra monies for anything outside of playing rugby, then I will concede and say Saracens are guilty. But in general life, you are allowed to have more than one source of income.

by BamBam Thu 02 May 2019, 12:53 pm

LordDowlais wrote:
BamBam wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
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.

It does though. Read the rules

Where is Man City's punishment then ? I have not seen them deducted points, transfer bans, kicked out of European competitions, or fined.

They were fined £20m. The punishment wasn't worse because they threatened 10 years of legal action

by marty2086 Thu 02 May 2019, 12:56 pm

LordDowlais wrote:marty, if there is anything in the rules that say players cannot earn extra monies for anything outside of playing rugby, then I will concede and say Saracens are guilty. But in general life, you are allowed to have more than one source of income.

Have you read even the summary of the salary cap?

by marty2086 Thu 02 May 2019, 12:56 pm

BamBam wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
BamBam wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:
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.

It does though. Read the rules

Where is Man City's punishment then ? I have not seen them deducted points, transfer bans, kicked out of European competitions, or fined.

They were fined £20m. The punishment wasn't worse because they threatened 10 years of legal action

Plus they were limited to the numbers of players they could register

by LordDowlais Thu 02 May 2019, 1:00 pm

Was that for FFP though ?

It's all to do with 3rd part ownership with FC Nordsjaelland and transfers of under age players, there is nothing about their stadium sponsorship or breaching FFP.

Look I am not saying you are wrong about Man City, I just cannot find it on the web. Can somebody please show me ?

by **LondonTiger** Thu 02 May 2019, 1:02 pm

marty2086 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:marty, if there is anything in the rules that say players cannot earn extra monies for anything outside of playing rugby, then I will concede and say Saracens are guilty. But in general life, you are allowed to have more than one source of income.

Have you read even the summary of the salary cap?

https://d2cx26qpfwuhvu.cloudfront.net/premier/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/03161651/Salary-Cap-Regulations-2018-19.pdf

56 pages for anyone who wishes to bother.

Schedule 1 (38-46) contains what is and isn't included. It runs to 9 pages and starts with:

"Salary" means, for the purposes of compliance with the Senior Ceiling and the Academy
Ceiling (as appropriate), the total of all the amounts referred to in this paragraph 1, whether
they are paid or payable (or in the case of a benefit in kind, provided or to be provided)
directly or indirectly onshore or offshore by or on behalf of a Club or any Connected Party of
the Club (or in relation to paragraph 1(t) only, by or on behalf of any Third Party), to or in
respect of a Player or any Connected Party of the Player, and shall exclude any amount set
out in paragraph 2.

by BamBam Thu 02 May 2019, 1:04 pm

LordDowlais wrote:Was that for FFP though ?

It's all to do with 3rd part ownership with FC Nordsjaelland and transfers of under age players, there is nothing about their stadium sponsorship or breaching FFP.

Look I am not saying you are wrong about Man City, I just cannot find it on the web. Can somebody please show me ?

https://www.apnews.com/171b8eae53ea475e9a29569497f144f8

by **LondonTiger** Thu 02 May 2019, 1:07 pm

16.6 PRL shall provide a report to the Board in relation to the annual Clubs’ Certification by January in the following Season in relation to the Clubs spend for the previous Season(s). Such report shall include but not be limited to total spend, total number of Players and each Club’s name. The report shall not include individual Player names or their Salaries and the Club name shall only be disclosed to reports from 2015/16 onwards and not apply to historical data.

This clause is amusing when looking at when the full report on spend started.

by LordDowlais Thu 02 May 2019, 1:07 pm

Cheers.

Sounds like the corrupt FIFA took the ££££££'s again and turned a blind eye, no wonder Sepp Blatter was in so much trouble. Rolling Eyes

by LordDowlais Thu 02 May 2019, 1:08 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
16.6 PRL shall provide a report to the Board in relation to the annual Clubs’ Certification by January in the following Season in relation to the Clubs spend for the previous Season(s). Such report shall include but not be limited to total spend, total number of Players and each Club’s name. The report shall not include individual Player names or their Salaries and the Club name shall only be disclosed to reports from 2015/16 onwards and not apply to historical data.
This clause is amusing when looking at when the full report on spend started.

No wonder Saracens cannot be banged to rights, it does make you wonder if they wrote these rules themselves.

by **LondonTiger** Thu 02 May 2019, 1:11 pm

BamBam wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:Was that for FFP though ?

It's all to do with 3rd part ownership with FC Nordsjaelland and transfers of under age players, there is nothing about their stadium sponsorship or breaching FFP.

Look I am not saying you are wrong about Man City, I just cannot find it on the web. Can somebody please show me ?
https://www.apnews.com/171b8eae53ea475e9a29569497f144f8

https://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/OfficialDocument/uefaorg/ClubFinancialControl/02/10/69/00/2106900_DOWNLOAD.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2014/may/16/manchester-city-fine-transfer-cap-uefa-ffp

by marty2086 Thu 02 May 2019, 1:45 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
LordDowlais wrote:marty, if there is anything in the rules that say players cannot earn extra monies for anything outside of playing rugby, then I will concede and say Saracens are guilty. But in general life, you are allowed to have more than one source of income.

Have you read even the summary of the salary cap?

https://d2cx26qpfwuhvu.cloudfront.net/premier/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/03161651/Salary-Cap-Regulations-2018-19.pdf

56 pages for anyone who wishes to bother.

Schedule 1 (38-46) contains what is and isn't included. It runs to 9 pages and starts with:

"Salary" means, for the purposes of compliance with the Senior Ceiling and the Academy
Ceiling (as appropriate), the total of all the amounts referred to in this paragraph 1, whether
they are paid or payable (or in the case of a benefit in kind, provided or to be provided)
directly or indirectly onshore or offshore by or on behalf of a Club or any Connected Party of
the Club (or in relation to paragraph 1(t) only, by or on behalf of any Third Party), to or in
respect of a Player or any Connected Party of the Player, and shall exclude any amount set
out in paragraph 2.

I mentioned the summary because it clearly states

Any 3rd Party & Connected Party (e.g. sponsor) payment unless demonstrated separate

The full document states

if the arrangement is with a Connected Party, it will be more likely to be
considered Salary

As Sarries didn't report it, they clearly haven't demonstrated it is separate

by No 7&1/2 Thu 02 May 2019, 5:59 pm

So. There we are. And people wonder whether a salary cap would be beneficial for the pro14. Not worth the paper it's written on.

by BamBam Fri 03 May 2019, 10:01 am

LordDowlais wrote:Cheers.

Sounds like the corrupt FIFA took the ££££££'s again and turned a blind eye, no wonder Sepp Blatter was in so much trouble.

Do you mean UEFA? That wasn't Sepp Blatter's domain, not that Gianni Infantino appears to be much better at this stage

Its a difficult one for the governing body, yes they want to punish rule breakers but can they afford to be tied up in long running legal battles against a bottomless pit of cash?

Its very similar to what Saracens and Bath threatened, which is why I brought it up, the key difference being that the other clubs were the ones who couldn't take the risk that the legal action would halt any revenue streams.

by marty2086 Fri 03 May 2019, 10:16 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:So. There we are. And people wonder whether a salary cap would be beneficial for the pro14. Not worth the paper it's written on.

That's in your opinion and theres no proof of that...allegedly Whistle

by **LondonTiger** Fri 07 Jun 2019, 7:04 am

Nigel Wray states that cap moaners are driven by jealousy. While the green eyed monster almost certainly plays a part, he really should reflect on his clubs attitude to this too.

He also moans about being penalised for producing England players and wants the two allowances covering academy credits and international provision increased. I would go the other way and reduce the cap but allow those players developed by the club to be fully outside the cap.

by marty2086 Fri 07 Jun 2019, 9:32 am

LondonTiger wrote:Nigel Wray states that cap moaners are driven by jealousy. While the green eyed monster almost certainly plays a part, he really should reflect on his clubs attitude to this too.

He also moans about being penalised for producing England players and wants the two allowances covering academy credits and international provision increased. I would go the other way and reduce the cap but allow those players developed by the club to be fully outside the cap.

Maybe it's more a case of those playing by the rules can't keep up and don't think that Sarries, and others, should have an advantage over them that is outside the rules

by No 7&1/2 Fri 07 Jun 2019, 10:03 am

I like that idea LT. Quite a nice compromise. Much better than being arrogant enough to just ignore the cap.

by Brendan Fri 07 Jun 2019, 10:35 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:I like that idea LT. Quite a nice compromise. Much better than being arrogant enough to just ignore the cap.

It could also result in players more likely to stay at their "home" club as their wage would be outside the cap so potential to earn more money. It would also limit teams in building a squad of hired help (like bath but maybe they had alot of home grown too)

by marty2086 Fri 07 Jun 2019, 10:43 am

Brendan wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:I like that idea LT. Quite a nice compromise. Much better than being arrogant enough to just ignore the cap.

It could also result in players more likely to stay at their "home" club as their wage would be outside the cap so potential to earn more money. It would also limit teams in building a squad of hired help (like bath but maybe they had alot of home grown too)

Is the point of the cap not meant to be to limit spending so the clubs don't overspend?

by **LondonTiger** Fri 07 Jun 2019, 10:46 am

Brendan wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:I like that idea LT. Quite a nice compromise. Much better than being arrogant enough to just ignore the cap.

It could also result in players more likely to stay at their "home" club as their wage would be outside the cap so potential to earn more money. It would also limit teams in building a squad of hired help (like bath but maybe they had alot of home grown too)

It could cause an increase of players being poached at 18 when they move to a full academy contract. It would also cause an issue for clubs seeking promotion without an RFU academy. Thus may not be a great idea of mine, but while I still believe Saracens have played fast and loose with the rules they are a long way from being a "buy success" club.

by formerly known as Sam Fri 07 Jun 2019, 10:47 am

LondonTiger wrote:Nigel Wray states that cap moaners are driven by jealousy. While the green eyed monster almost certainly plays a part, he really should reflect on his clubs attitude to this too.

He also moans about being penalised for producing England players and wants the two allowances covering academy credits and international provision increased. I would go the other way and reduce the cap but allow those players developed by the club to be fully outside the cap.

The only problem you then get is the more wealthy clubs start offering scholarships to talented youngsters to get them into schools within their academy catchment areas. That goes on now and would be worse if those rules came into play. The pilfering of Championship academy players would be massive and a lot of the larger more affluent clubs would start to push for multiple academy teams being allowed.

by **LondonTiger** Fri 07 Jun 2019, 10:52 am

I wonder what the "best" XV would be among premiership clubs looking purely at players still active who came through a clubs development system.

by marty2086 Fri 07 Jun 2019, 10:53 am

LondonTiger wrote:
Brendan wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:I like that idea LT. Quite a nice compromise. Much better than being arrogant enough to just ignore the cap.

It could also result in players more likely to stay at their "home" club as their wage would be outside the cap so potential to earn more money. It would also limit teams in building a squad of hired help (like bath but maybe they had alot of home grown too)

It could cause an increase of players being poached at 18 when they move to a full academy contract. It would also cause an issue for clubs seeking promotion without an RFU academy. Thus may not be a great idea of mine, but while I still believe Saracens have played fast and loose with the rules they are a long way from being a "buy success" club.

I think you might be half right, they aren't the only ones doing it but just have other structures and a culture in place to make it pay dividends but I'd bet they have done it on a bigger scale. You'd have to ask what players would they have lost if they weren't doing it? Would they have lost some of the guys who are integral to their systems and culture? Would they have lost depth that would mean they couldn't compete on multiple fronts?

by Brendan Fri 07 Jun 2019, 11:10 am

LondonTiger wrote:I wonder what the "best" XV would be among premiership clubs looking purely at players still active who came through a clubs development system.

Sarries and Exeter seems to get the best out of their academy it seems so I would say teams like Bath will have noticed this and be investing. Newcastle use to be great but they couldn't keep their players.

In Soccer while you can't sign for a club under 18 (I think) that is a certain distance from your home many parents of talented kids get jobs that result in kids playing for the big teams. I would say all the behind the scenes stuff that go on in soccer will start coming into rugby. What are the current rules in England for under 18s and that are signed up to one of the 14 academies. Can the players choose or is it determined by school or home. Which academy has the most number of elite schools in their area.

In Ireland unless you play at certain rugby focused secondary schools you probably have a 1% chance of making it. Leinster has the most number of these schools in their area hence the best academy. So getting the players into these schools probably has the biggest impact on the provinces academies. If you have 12 elite schools v 6 elite schools to choose from its obvious who will have the better academy.

by No 7&1/2 Fri 07 Jun 2019, 11:13 am

The answer is almost certainly Marty. You can see for a team like wasps that balancing the books can mean a few important players need to leave which impacts the stability of the club. A tough year or 2 and suddenly players are looking elsewhere to clubs on the rise.

by Geordie Fri 07 Jun 2019, 11:22 am

Brendan wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:I wonder what the "best" XV would be among premiership clubs looking purely at players still active who came through a clubs development system.

Sarries and Exeter seems to get the best out of their academy it seems so I would say teams like Bath will have noticed this and be investing. Newcastle use to be great but they couldn't keep their players.

In Soccer while you can't sign for a club under 18 (I think) that is a certain distance from your home many parents of talented kids get jobs that result in kids playing for the big teams. I would say all the behind the scenes stuff that go on in soccer will start coming into rugby. What are the current rules in England for under 18s and that are signed up to one of the 14 academies. Can the players choose or is it determined by school or home. Which academy has the most number of elite schools in their area.

In Ireland unless you play at certain rugby focused secondary schools you probably have a 1% chance of making it. Leinster has the most number of these schools in their area hence the best academy. So getting the players into these schools probably has the biggest impact on the provinces academies. If you have 12 elite schools v 6 elite schools to choose from its obvious who will have the better academy.

We are doing it again...and will have lots more over the next few seasons. Our problem is the coaching at the moment

by Brendan Fri 07 Jun 2019, 11:30 am

GeordieFalcon wrote:
Brendan wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:I wonder what the "best" XV would be among premiership clubs looking purely at players still active who came through a clubs development system.

Sarries and Exeter seems to get the best out of their academy it seems so I would say teams like Bath will have noticed this and be investing. Newcastle use to be great but they couldn't keep their players.

In Soccer while you can't sign for a club under 18 (I think) that is a certain distance from your home many parents of talented kids get jobs that result in kids playing for the big teams. I would say all the behind the scenes stuff that go on in soccer will start coming into rugby. What are the current rules in England for under 18s and that are signed up to one of the 14 academies. Can the players choose or is it determined by school or home. Which academy has the most number of elite schools in their area.

In Ireland unless you play at certain rugby focused secondary schools you probably have a 1% chance of making it. Leinster has the most number of these schools in their area hence the best academy. So getting the players into these schools probably has the biggest impact on the provinces academies. If you have 12 elite schools v 6 elite schools to choose from its obvious who will have the better academy.

We are doing it again...and will have lots more over the next few seasons. Our problem is the coaching at the moment

Is it the people running it, the underage/lower league set up or something else that causes Newcastle to do it well. North England wouldn't be the hotbed of Union like the West Country, and has much bigger competition from football and League so the fact that with the resources available they churn out players something is right.

In Soccer who is running your academy is important. Never really hear it mentioned in Rugby. But I'm not sure that the set ups in Rugby would be as hands on.

by Geordie Fri 07 Jun 2019, 11:55 am

Ironically...the football academy is appalling, infact theres a lot of focus on that now...because football is a religion up here and to produce zero from our academy is MASSIVELY underperforming.

Only Longstaff has come through recently who is real quality.

I dont know what the secret is with us. We had a lull for a few years, but we are suddenly producing England age grade players now again and obviously, the likes of Harris (Scotland) , Wilson & Hamersley (England) are starting to get full international recognition.

I think we have a few that can make that level coming through now aswell. The new batch looks massively impressive.

Thats why im very concerned that Dean and his staff get it right tactically etc on the pitch etc. .

by formerly known as Sam Fri 07 Jun 2019, 12:09 pm

LondonTiger wrote:I wonder what the "best" XV would be among premiership clubs looking purely at players still active who came through a clubs development system.

1. ?Bower (terrible prop)/ Harris (worse)
2. Youngs/Kerr
3. Cole / Balmain / Heyes
4. Green
5. Wells
6. Reffell
7. Evans
8. ? Fred Tuilagi?
9. Youngs
10. Ford
11. Walker
12. Twelvetrees
13. Manu
14. Lewington
15. Worth

by Geordie Fri 07 Jun 2019, 12:24 pm

Ok we're not a premier team now but

1 Brocklebank
2 George McGuigan
3 Trevor Davison
4 Sean Robinson
5
6 Will Welch
7 Mark Wilson
8 Calum Chick

9 Michael Young
10 Toby Flood / Joel Hodgson / Brett Connon
11 Adam Radwan
12
13 Chris Harris
14 Zach Kibirgie
15 Alex Tait

by **LondonTiger** Fri 07 Jun 2019, 12:42 pm

Balmain is a better LH than either of those Sam.

I would have Thacker as hooker.

by formerly known as Sam Fri 07 Jun 2019, 12:49 pm

LondonTiger wrote:Balmain is a better LH than either of those Sam.

I would have Thacker as hooker.

Most looseheads are better than those two but yeah I'd forgotten Balmain used to play both sides. I'd probably go with Kerr at hooker out of all of them as he's the most well rounded. I'm a fan of Thacker he's a player who can create something. Perhaps should have moved to the backrow if we wanted to get England recognition but at Bristol he's in a team that suits him really well.

by thebandwagonsociety Fri 07 Jun 2019, 5:33 pm

Brendan wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:I wonder what the "best" XV would be among premiership clubs looking purely at players still active who came through a clubs development system.

Sarries and Exeter seems to get the best out of their academy it seems so I would say teams like Bath will have noticed this and be investing. Newcastle use to be great but they couldn't keep their players.

In Soccer while you can't sign for a club under 18 (I think) that is a certain distance from your home many parents of talented kids get jobs that result in kids playing for the big teams. I would say all the behind the scenes stuff that go on in soccer will start coming into rugby. What are the current rules in England for under 18s and that are signed up to one of the 14 academies. Can the players choose or is it determined by school or home. Which academy has the most number of elite schools in their area.

In Ireland unless you play at certain rugby focused secondary schools you probably have a 1% chance of making it. Leinster has the most number of these schools in their area hence the best academy. So getting the players into these schools probably has the biggest impact on the provinces academies. If you have 12 elite schools v 6 elite schools to choose from its obvious who will have the better academy.

True but money and numbers don't solely drive the result. Take Leinster, Dublin has the population but Kilkenny produces the better hurling side, what are the other factors that come to play? City have bought in the best talent, but overall has the academy really produced exceptional talents? I'd think back a couple of decades when West Ham would be producing quality youngster while close to broke but wouldn't have the money to keep hold of them (maybe Ajax would be a better example). There has to be a drive, a focus, a playing ethos, a ruthlessness and a nurturing style that factors into a successful academy and how many of those items can even have a value placed on them let alone bought.

McCall is getting the kudos at Saracens but I'd say there are a combination of people in that club that are the true key cogs in the machine rolling

by **LondonTiger** Tue 03 Sep 2019, 10:59 am

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/saracens-salary-cap-investigation-passed-on-to-independent-body-reports

And from The Times:

Owen Slot - The Times wrote:Wales dropped from first to fourth in the world rankings at the weekend. A fortnight after being dismantled by England, Ireland have hopped up to second. Yet while it has become fashionable these past few weeks to poke fun at the randomness of the rankings, one of the best sides in the world doesn’t get a ranking and is not going to the World Cup. This is Saracens.

Just imagine how far Saracens could go in Japan. They have five of the England pack; seven of the starting XV. In a week, by which time all the World Cup squads will have been announced, they will probably have another six going with other nations. Will Skelton, the Australian, would be a seventh if he had not found his Saracens deal preferable. Elliot Daly is the starting full back for England but may only be third-choice No 15 for Saracens.

If we agree that they could compete at world level, we could probably agree that Saracens are phenomenally strong favourites to win the Gallagher Premiership again this season.
If/when they do they will have won five Premiership titles out of the past six.

You doubt that when CVC, the private equity firm, bought its 27 per cent share of the Premiership this year, it wanted to buy a monopoly. You would presume that it wanted a competition full of intrigue and knife-edge tension. The value of the competition is hardly going to rise if we already know who will be champions.

On to the salary-cap investigation, then. If Exeter Chiefs, Wasps et al cannot break Saracens, will it be this that finally does it?

You will recall that at the end of last season, Saracens were placed under “review”. Several players’ businesses were revealed in the media, particularly Faz Investments Ltd, a company run by Owen Farrell, Wiggy9 Ltd (Richard Wigglesworth’s) and VunProp Ltd (the Vunipola brothers’) all of which were launched with Nigel Wray, the Saracens owner, as a financial partner.

This demanded an answer to the question: is this not a smart way around the salary-cap rules? A payment in kind? Wray quickly issued a substantial, unyielding statement in which he sought not to deny these investments — quite the opposite, he said that they were within the salary-cap rules and that he was proud to be helping his players to become businessmen and invest in their futures in this way.

That is where we left the stand-off. Andrew Rogers, the Premiership salary cap manager, was left investigating it. The pressure is growing on him now because, five months on, the other clubs are chomping at the bit. The Premiership does not start until mid-October, but the Premiership Rugby Cup begins in three weeks.

Some clubs would love to see Saracens brought to their knees with a guilty verdict accompanied by a points deduction and severe reputational damage. Yet while none of them seems to be in a particularly forgiving mood, even if you attempt to take the emotion out, what they all need, before the season’s start, is clarity. Whatever the conclusion, it is hard to see how it cannot damage Saracens.

There are three most likely outcomes.

One: despite a well-resourced legal battle, Wray fails to show that his co-investments are not a benefit in kind that break the cap. Saracens are found to be in breach of the rules. The maximum penalty is a 35-point deduction.

Of longer lasting significance, then, is: what would happen to the squad? Saracens would have to re-budget fast to come down under the cap. There could be a reduction in player wages, a fire sale of players or Wray would have to sell his shareholding in his players’ companies. Maybe a bit of all three.

Two: Wray wins the legal argument and Saracens are found to be not in breach. At that point, suddenly, the salary cap has been detonated. It currently stands at £7 million. If every other club is informed that, legally, they can go into business with their players, like Wray, then the game has been immediately transformed. The ramifications are vast.

At that point, each club would have to decide whether or not they wanted to compete at this level. Money would rule. Wage inflation would rage. The southern-hemisphere nations have few defences to stop their players from being lured by the lucre of the north; they would now find it even harder to cope.

Three: Wray wins the legal argument and Saracens are found not to be in breach, but the reaction of the other clubs is to close the legal loophole. Wray could fight it and we would get into a further legal dispute. However, at some point, the votes of the other 12 clubs would beat the Saracens one. At what stage could those clubs just refuse to play against them?

The inside information is that, with the new season approaching, this is all soon to come to a head. Even if Saracens win this fight, though, it is hard to see how they do not lose.

by carpet baboon Tue 03 Sep 2019, 12:06 pm

LondonTiger wrote:https://www.rugbypass.com/news/saracens-salary-cap-investigation-passed-on-to-independent-body-reports

And from The Times:

Owen Slot - The Times wrote:Wales dropped from first to fourth in the world rankings at the weekend. A fortnight after being dismantled by England, Ireland have hopped up to second. Yet while it has become fashionable these past few weeks to poke fun at the randomness of the rankings, one of the best sides in the world doesn’t get a ranking and is not going to the World Cup. This is Saracens.

Just imagine how far Saracens could go in Japan. They have five of the England pack; seven of the starting XV. In a week, by which time all the World Cup squads will have been announced, they will probably have another six going with other nations. Will Skelton, the Australian, would be a seventh if he had not found his Saracens deal preferable. Elliot Daly is the starting full back for England but may only be third-choice No 15 for Saracens.

If we agree that they could compete at world level, we could probably agree that Saracens are phenomenally strong favourites to win the Gallagher Premiership again this season.
If/when they do they will have won five Premiership titles out of the past six.

You doubt that when CVC, the private equity firm, bought its 27 per cent share of the Premiership this year, it wanted to buy a monopoly. You would presume that it wanted a competition full of intrigue and knife-edge tension. The value of the competition is hardly going to rise if we already know who will be champions.

On to the salary-cap investigation, then. If Exeter Chiefs, Wasps et al cannot break Saracens, will it be this that finally does it?

You will recall that at the end of last season, Saracens were placed under “review”. Several players’ businesses were revealed in the media, particularly Faz Investments Ltd, a company run by Owen Farrell, Wiggy9 Ltd (Richard Wigglesworth’s) and VunProp Ltd (the Vunipola brothers’) all of which were launched with Nigel Wray, the Saracens owner, as a financial partner.

This demanded an answer to the question: is this not a smart way around the salary-cap rules? A payment in kind? Wray quickly issued a substantial, unyielding statement in which he sought not to deny these investments — quite the opposite, he said that they were within the salary-cap rules and that he was proud to be helping his players to become businessmen and invest in their futures in this way.

That is where we left the stand-off. Andrew Rogers, the Premiership salary cap manager, was left investigating it. The pressure is growing on him now because, five months on, the other clubs are chomping at the bit. The Premiership does not start until mid-October, but the Premiership Rugby Cup begins in three weeks.

Some clubs would love to see Saracens brought to their knees with a guilty verdict accompanied by a points deduction and severe reputational damage. Yet while none of them seems to be in a particularly forgiving mood, even if you attempt to take the emotion out, what they all need, before the season’s start, is clarity. Whatever the conclusion, it is hard to see how it cannot damage Saracens.

There are three most likely outcomes.

One: despite a well-resourced legal battle, Wray fails to show that his co-investments are not a benefit in kind that break the cap. Saracens are found to be in breach of the rules. The maximum penalty is a 35-point deduction.

Of longer lasting significance, then, is: what would happen to the squad? Saracens would have to re-budget fast to come down under the cap. There could be a reduction in player wages, a fire sale of players or Wray would have to sell his shareholding in his players’ companies. Maybe a bit of all three.

Two: Wray wins the legal argument and Saracens are found to be not in breach. At that point, suddenly, the salary cap has been detonated. It currently stands at £7 million. If every other club is informed that, legally, they can go into business with their players, like Wray, then the game has been immediately transformed. The ramifications are vast.

At that point, each club would have to decide whether or not they wanted to compete at this level. Money would rule. Wage inflation would rage. The southern-hemisphere nations have few defences to stop their players from being lured by the lucre of the north; they would now find it even harder to cope.

Three: Wray wins the legal argument and Saracens are found not to be in breach, but the reaction of the other clubs is to close the legal loophole. Wray could fight it and we would get into a further legal dispute. However, at some point, the votes of the other 12 clubs would beat the Saracens one. At what stage could those clubs just refuse to play against them?

The inside information is that, with the new season approaching, this is all soon to come to a head. Even if Saracens win this fight, though, it is hard to see how they do not lose.

Could this be the beginning of sarries downfall?
Don't think the other clubs are willing to back down, and I hope they dont

by SecretFly Tue 03 Sep 2019, 12:31 pm

Oh stop being so straight laced y'all.

Just succumb to the inevitable.

Now - I got a company that's into some stuff that might help the world some if Wray came on board. I don't got a name yet that I'm settled on but maybe something like Fly Logistics Industrial Corporate Designation Systems...... Ltd?

Anyway, I think it sounds posh enough to be a real goer if Wray invested maybe 40M into it? If somebody knows him, tell him to give me a call. If he's not interested, I'll move on to Philip Green.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 03 Sep 2019, 12:31 pm

We still do not know (though someone surely does) whether Wray funded these investments with the players reaping benefit. That this is still ongoing suggests he has which means that I suspect that Option 4 is most likely. Close to Option 3 in that no censure is made of Wray and Sarries (or penalty) but the "loophole" is closed.

Purely speculation, but it is suggested that some of these "Investments" are properties that the players either live in for free or receive rent payments despite not actually funding the purchase.

by **LondonTiger** Tue 03 Sep 2019, 12:33 pm

SecretFly wrote:Oh stop being so straight laced y'all.

Just succumb to the inevitable.

Now - I got a company that's into some stuff that might help the world some if Wray came on board. I don't got a name yet that I'm settled on but maybe something like Fly Logistics Industrial Corporate Designation Systems...... Ltd?

Anyway, I think it sounds posh enough to be a real goer if Wray invested maybe 40M into it? If somebody knows him, tell him to give me a call. If he's not interested, I'll move on to Philip Green.

FLICDS not the best acronym.

How about Fly's Universal Corporate Kit Marketing Experts?

by SecretFly Tue 03 Sep 2019, 12:36 pm

Hmmm...I'm suspicious of that one, Tiger. Sounds like it might be a company that would actually do something.

Not my line of business really at this moment in time... Whistle

by Brendan Mon 09 Sep 2019, 6:28 pm

Can the other 12 change the salary cap rules if Sarries don't agree. Thought everyone had to agree. Surely Bath and Bristol would be in a position to take advantage of loopholes so why would they vote against it. It's not like Bristol are against paying over the odds for players so they can win a league. Even if Sarries were docked 35 points they would be one season in the challange cup and have one year where they don't get to the playoffs after being in the last 10.

If Sarries were kicked out of the Premership I am fairly sure the Pro 14 would take them in at the drop of a hat and let them run their business as they please (subject to RFU approval via the threat of courts). As much as we may not like them, it would be great for the league and open up England to the league. It would also force the top teams to up their standards. Sarries hold all the cards in the long game I cant see how they could kick them out even if the other 12 wanted to.

If Sarries played by the rules their European adventures would end up like Exeter of give it a go and one year we will do it. Who would carry the Premership flag then.

by LordDowlais Tue 10 Sep 2019, 2:02 pm

I would like to see a wage cap introduced to the Pro14.

by Brendan Tue 10 Sep 2019, 8:39 pm

LordDowlais wrote:I would like to see a wage cap introduced to the Pro14.

There was for some of the teams and it didn't go to well.

All the teams have maximums they are willing to spend on wages. The SRU could choose to have a higher wage cap than they do but they have decided that there is a max wage they will pay in Scotland.

We could bring in a £10m wage cap I guess, but depending on Brexit it might not be a lot. Which brings up an interesting point. If the pound drops in value by say 20% (highly unlikely) would the premiership cap have to be increased as it would lower the purchase power of the teams or is it set for a number of years.

by Sponsored content