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!

Famously the press give an easy ride to england.

If it means Mako missing out and forcing Marler to play on then I'm all for it.

Big wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i wouldnt be surprised at all if the Sarries players choose to play for their club during the 6Nations.

...

It may be nothing more than Eddie's musings, and if so it's getting more air-time than it merits (he does seem to enjoy a bit of pot-stirring and I'm fairly sure that's all this is). And if players decide to play for their club and be unavailable for England then that is of course their choice and I would respect that.  However, my choice (if I were in Eddie's position) would be that any player putting club before country would basically disqualify themselves from future involvement unless/until they demonstrate that playing for their country is their number 1 rugby priority.  This isn't the first time there have been England players at clubs involved in a relegation fight, but as far as I'm aware it would be the first time if they chose not to play for England as a result (please correct me if wrong).

Very hard to imagine any English club with 9 players that could be selected for England's next match, having ever been involved in a relegation battle before........i suspect that number of England internationals would guarantee them being tope 3 in the League....

so i think all bets are off. i don't think EJ is wumming why would he? it's not a Lions year, it's not a world cup year. For those players its a premiership survival year. I bet their availability for England will be decided by where Sarries sit in the league come february....

quinsforever wrote:

Big wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i wouldnt be surprised at all if the Sarries players choose to play for their club during the 6Nations.

...

It may be nothing more than Eddie's musings, and if so it's getting more air-time than it merits (he does seem to enjoy a bit of pot-stirring and I'm fairly sure that's all this is). And if players decide to play for their club and be unavailable for England then that is of course their choice and I would respect that.  However, my choice (if I were in Eddie's position) would be that any player putting club before country would basically disqualify themselves from future involvement unless/until they demonstrate that playing for their country is their number 1 rugby priority.  This isn't the first time there have been England players at clubs involved in a relegation fight, but as far as I'm aware it would be the first time if they chose not to play for England as a result (please correct me if wrong).

Very hard to imagine any English club with 9 players that could be selected for England's next match, having ever been involved in a relegation battle before........i suspect that number of England internationals would guarantee them being tope 3 in the League....

so i think all bets are off. i don't think EJ is wumming why would he? it's not a Lions year, it's not a world cup year. For those players its a premiership survival year. I bet their availability for England will be decided by where Sarries sit in the league come february....

If they choose not to play then they forfeit their EPS contracts. EPS players get £40k fixed credit, i.e. £40k of their salary exempt from the cap. George, Mako, Itoje, Kruis, Billy, Farrell and Daly - if those 6 opted out it would effectively add £280k to Saracens cap issues.

On top of that Sarries will be expecting £5k credits for each game those EPS players miss due to international duty.

If their England players did opt out then they would be in even more trouble getting under the cap.

Soul Requiem wrote:If it means Mako missing out and forcing Marler to play on then I'm all for it.

Seems Marler is being set up as the new Vickery. There'll be stories about him finally throwing in the towel in 2046.

Which will still be two years short of Big Phil's chosen time to hang up the boots though.

king_carlos wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Big wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i wouldnt be surprised at all if the Sarries players choose to play for their club during the 6Nations.

...

It may be nothing more than Eddie's musings, and if so it's getting more air-time than it merits (he does seem to enjoy a bit of pot-stirring and I'm fairly sure that's all this is). And if players decide to play for their club and be unavailable for England then that is of course their choice and I would respect that.  However, my choice (if I were in Eddie's position) would be that any player putting club before country would basically disqualify themselves from future involvement unless/until they demonstrate that playing for their country is their number 1 rugby priority.  This isn't the first time there have been England players at clubs involved in a relegation fight, but as far as I'm aware it would be the first time if they chose not to play for England as a result (please correct me if wrong).

Very hard to imagine any English club with 9 players that could be selected for England's next match, having ever been involved in a relegation battle before........i suspect that number of England internationals would guarantee them being tope 3 in the League....

so i think all bets are off. i don't think EJ is wumming why would he? it's not a Lions year, it's not a world cup year. For those players its a premiership survival year. I bet their availability for England will be decided by where Sarries sit in the league come february....

If they choose not to play then they forfeit their EPS contracts. EPS players get £40k fixed credit, i.e. £40k of their salary exempt from the cap. George, Mako, Itoje, Kruis, Billy, Farrell and Daly - if those 6 opted out it would effectively add £280k to Saracens cap issues.

On top of that Sarries will be expecting £5k credits for each game those EPS players miss due to international duty.

If their England players did opt out then they would be in even more trouble getting under the cap.

i am sure you are right.

however given that these would be choices of the players, it's hard to see how Saracens could be deemed culpable. Saracens in that instance would have no control over those payments.

quinsforever wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

quinsforever wrote:

Big wrote:

quinsforever wrote:i wouldnt be surprised at all if the Sarries players choose to play for their club during the 6Nations.

...

It may be nothing more than Eddie's musings, and if so it's getting more air-time than it merits (he does seem to enjoy a bit of pot-stirring and I'm fairly sure that's all this is). And if players decide to play for their club and be unavailable for England then that is of course their choice and I would respect that.  However, my choice (if I were in Eddie's position) would be that any player putting club before country would basically disqualify themselves from future involvement unless/until they demonstrate that playing for their country is their number 1 rugby priority.  This isn't the first time there have been England players at clubs involved in a relegation fight, but as far as I'm aware it would be the first time if they chose not to play for England as a result (please correct me if wrong).

Very hard to imagine any English club with 9 players that could be selected for England's next match, having ever been involved in a relegation battle before........i suspect that number of England internationals would guarantee them being tope 3 in the League....

so i think all bets are off. i don't think EJ is wumming why would he? it's not a Lions year, it's not a world cup year. For those players its a premiership survival year. I bet their availability for England will be decided by where Sarries sit in the league come february....

If they choose not to play then they forfeit their EPS contracts. EPS players get £40k fixed credit, i.e. £40k of their salary exempt from the cap. George, Mako, Itoje, Kruis, Billy, Farrell and Daly - if those 6 opted out it would effectively add £280k to Saracens cap issues.

On top of that Sarries will be expecting £5k credits for each game those EPS players miss due to international duty.

If their England players did opt out then they would be in even more trouble getting under the cap.

i am sure you are right.

however given that these would be choices of the players, it's hard to see how Saracens could be deemed culpable. Saracens in that instance would have no control over those payments.

It's their budget, how they allow and spend is entirely up to them. If they have used those allowances (and they previously stated that they have) in order to afford a bigger and better squad then that is on them. It is worth noting that the punishments for overspend are on a sliding basis, if a player was to fall out of international consideration then the small overspend would be a slap on the wrist style punishment. Sarries are rumoured to be £650k over already and this would push them further over and that level of overspend is considerable and would incur further penalties.

Sarries would be better to send their internationals off with England, give Liam Williams the season off and hope that the balance of overspend then falls into the minor punishments so next season is not as hampered as this. Sarries squad is still tasty and still capable of getting results in the international window.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/sale-owner-simon-orange-on-why-breaching-salary-cap-is-easy-to-do

Orange, brother of former Take That star Jason Orange, claims it is easy for clubs to spend above the £7m cap undetected. “I don’t know but I know I have got 34 players and I’m struggling and others have 48 quality players and aren’t so I suspect we’re not all the way there yet,” he said.

“It crossed my mind and the truth of the matter is, if you wanted to do it, it’s easy to do. I am involved in 30 different companies and, if any of those companies decided to pay the players or employ their wives, I am not saying nobody could find out but the audit wouldn’t find out.”

Not looking to compare squads across the league (not for now any way) but it appears from their website that Sale Sharks have a 35 player first team squad and a 20 player development squad.

Take that (points deduction and fine), Sarries

Employ the wives?????? Sexist nepotism still exists in a post Me Too world?

The shock!

Looks like it could be about to get worse for Sarries:

https://twitter.com/owenslot/status/1199235192017358848

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/saracens-told-to-open-books-by-premiership-rugby-zwxbtkb72 (paywall)

Sarries are being instructed to open their books for a mid-season audit. So all the previous questions about compliance with the cap being answered with "it's calculated at the end of the season" might not be strictly true this time around...

Good.

Rinsure wrote:Looks like it could be about to get worse for Sarries:

https://twitter.com/owenslot/status/1199235192017358848

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/saracens-told-to-open-books-by-premiership-rugby-zwxbtkb72 (paywall)

Sarries are being instructed to open their books for a mid-season audit. So all the previous questions about compliance with the cap being answered with "it's calculated at the end of the season" might not be strictly true this time around...

Talk about shifting the goalposts. This is just a witch hunt now.
If the points deduction maxes out at -35 and the financial penalty is capped at £3 for every £1 over the cap (luxury tax), and it only gets calculated at the end of the season, once Saracens are fine with paying the £5m and taking the points deduction. If Wray wants to do it for another season, he should be allowed, it's a perfectly good option to assemble the best squad and take a handicap and luxury tax hit if he thinks his team will still make it over the line first by the end of the season. Question is why are the other clubs such cowards that (1) they don't want to take the risk and (2) want to prevent Wray from showing commitment to "his" club?

It's the nature of Saracens failing to adhere to the cap by policing their own spending.

Quins for instance are rumoured to have been keen for Marchant to go on loan to the Blues this season partly due to a need to sort out an overspend.

I know that Tigers have been rumoured to have sent players out on season long loans to the Championship in previous seasons to reduce their cap spend due to overstepping slightly.

Having been around £650k over last season and signed Daly (plus re-signed Itoje hence presumably moving Farrell into the cap and Itoje to marquee) for this season it's hardly a surprise they are suspected to be over the cap.

Publicly stating that they won't break up their squad to reduce cap spend possibly won't have helped either...

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Rinsure wrote:Looks like it could be about to get worse for Sarries:

https://twitter.com/owenslot/status/1199235192017358848

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/saracens-told-to-open-books-by-premiership-rugby-zwxbtkb72 (paywall)

Sarries are being instructed to open their books for a mid-season audit. So all the previous questions about compliance with the cap being answered with "it's calculated at the end of the season" might not be strictly true this time around...

Talk about shifting the goalposts.  This is just a witch hunt now.
If the points deduction maxes out at -35 and the financial penalty is capped at £3 for every £1 over the cap (luxury tax), and it only gets calculated at the end of the season, once Saracens are fine with paying the £5m and taking the points deduction.  If Wray wants to do it for another season, he should be allowed, it's a perfectly good option to assemble the best squad and take a handicap and luxury tax hit if he thinks his team will still make it over the line first by the end of the season.  Question is why are the other clubs such cowards that (1) they don't want to take the risk and (2) want to prevent Wray from showing commitment to "his" club?

So you're basically saying that because Wray has more money than anyone else he can should just be allowed to spend his way to championships and cups every season by building a squad that no matter what the points deductions and fines are will win and bugger the rest of the clubs, the agreement the clubs, PRL and the RFU have in place to run the sport and more importantly as this is rugby go against every concept of sportsmanship and trust that is supposedly the hallmark of our sport?
In regard to your second point, if Wray spent his money on upgrading Barnet with it's temporary stands, portakabins and non existent car parking that might show more commitment to his club.

Irish Londoner wrote:

thebandwagonsociety wrote:

Rinsure wrote:Looks like it could be about to get worse for Sarries:

https://twitter.com/owenslot/status/1199235192017358848

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/sport/saracens-told-to-open-books-by-premiership-rugby-zwxbtkb72 (paywall)

Sarries are being instructed to open their books for a mid-season audit. So all the previous questions about compliance with the cap being answered with "it's calculated at the end of the season" might not be strictly true this time around...

Talk about shifting the goalposts.  This is just a witch hunt now.
If the points deduction maxes out at -35 and the financial penalty is capped at £3 for every £1 over the cap (luxury tax), and it only gets calculated at the end of the season, once Saracens are fine with paying the £5m and taking the points deduction.  If Wray wants to do it for another season, he should be allowed, it's a perfectly good option to assemble the best squad and take a handicap and luxury tax hit if he thinks his team will still make it over the line first by the end of the season.  Question is why are the other clubs such cowards that (1) they don't want to take the risk and (2) want to prevent Wray from showing commitment to "his" club?

So you're basically saying that because Wray has more money than anyone else he can should just be allowed to spend his way to championships and cups every season by building a squad that no matter what the points deductions and fines are will win and bugger the rest of the clubs, the agreement the clubs, PRL and the RFU have in place to run the sport and more importantly as this is rugby go against every concept of sportsmanship and trust that is supposedly the hallmark of our sport?
In regard to your second point, if Wray spent his money on upgrading Barnet with it's temporary stands, portakabins and non existent car parking that might show more commitment to his club.

I'm not saying that because he has more money he should be allowed. I'm saying anyone can choose to spend above the cap so long as they are willing to start off with negative points and pay up the luxury tax.

I think the rule is the rule and should be applied to everyone. The rule says if you break the salary cap you are given a fine. He is paying the fine so he is playing within the terms so long as he discloses it. Hiding payments is the issue. If for this season if he has decided to continue to pay his squad more, if the rules are so badly written that he can do that this season, pay a £3 fine for every £1 over the cap when they get to next season for that choice and he is happy to start next season -35 points then that's within the current rules. So be it.

In my view, investing in facilities for fans, academy facilities and more long term investments are better for the club than short term increases in players salaries. But, while it might be a smaller percentage of someones net worth than my own contributions towards a local club, I have respect anyone who chooses to put hundred of thousands, indeed millions of pounds into a club they support.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50854096

PRL announce a review of Salary Cap regs. If it makes it easier to keep players that have come through a clubs academy it will be positive.

Nigel wray retires. Am I being too cynical when I immediately think it's part of a plan to get around a rule or 2 again?

Anyone like to take bets on Nigel Wray coming back into the game as CVC's representative?

Irish Londoner wrote:Anyone like to take bets on Nigel Wray coming back into the game as CVC's representative?

Salary Cap czar

LondonTiger wrote:

Khouli Khan wrote:

Gooseberry wrote:

With the playoffs being near impossible for Saracens...

Oh, I wouldn't right Salarysins off for the play-offs just yet....

29 points behind 4th place, with 14 matches to go. Saracens would need to break all records to make the play-offs and still need a freak set of results from other teams. More realistic would be chasing top 6.

But it IS doable. At the rate they're going, and given the mid-table congestion, I for one am not writing them off.

Can you imagine if they did - or even comfortably finish top 6, it would simply reinforce what most people thought at the time - a 35 point deduction was not punishment enough. According to my wife (A Chiefs supporter), Salaysins should have been relegated.

Just a personal opinion, but Chiefs (both management and fans) are letting themselves down.

There were clear rules in place, with clear punishments. Saracens broke the rules and received the maximum penalty. Chiefs fans want to punish Saracens for breaking the rules with punishments that break the rules.

LondonTiger wrote:Just a personal opinion, but Chiefs (both management and fans) are letting themselves down.

There were clear rules in place, with clear punishments. Saracens broke the rules and received the maximum penalty. Chiefs fans want to punish Saracens for breaking the rules with punishments that break the rules.

Chiefs fans have every right to feel aggrieved - Chiefs have been denied at least two Premiership titles losing to the cheats in the finals. The only reason Tigers' fans are being so magnanimous is that Tigers are so shoite that they haven't been in a position to get shafted. I bet if they had been, the mood would be different.

Agree with that LT. The calls for Sarries to be relegated when there is nothing in the regs to enforce that are ridiculous.

My gripes/questions revolve more around this season to be honest. Itoje re-signed on a gigantic contract (his previous contract when coming out the academy), Daly signed, Singleton signed and Skelton re-signed as a much improved player who was offered a lot by the ARU. I struggle to see how they are now under the cap.

I also have frustrations over the co-investments being ruled as salary only in the seasons they were paid into rather than spread over the contracts as a clear form of front loading.

king_carlos wrote:Agree with that LT. The calls for Sarries to be relegated when there is nothing in the regs to enforce that are ridiculous.

No they're not. The fact that the regs don't call for relegation as punishment, doesn't make the punishment fair.

For a lot (a bloody lot) of people, fair punishment would have been relegation and stripping of titles won under the period in question.

Sarries cheated and are still cheating. Squad hasn't changed and they even added the current England full back to their squad.

No sure why it has become wrong to call out these cheats?

I wish people would stop feeling sympathy for them.

TightHEAD wrote:Sarries cheated and are still cheating. Squad hasn't changed and they even added the current England full back to their squad.

No sure why it has become wrong to call out these cheats?

I wish people would stop feeling sympathy for them.

Well said. You can't just forget what might have been if you were a Chiefs supporter - or any team they faced in a Eurpean Cup run.

Khouli Khan wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Agree with that LT. The calls for Sarries to be relegated when there is nothing in the regs to enforce that are ridiculous.

No they're not. The fact that the regs don't call for relegation as punishment, doesn't make the punishment fair.

For a lot (a bloody lot) of people, fair punishment would have been relegation and stripping of titles won under the period in question.

It is fair according to the law laid down by the governing association...so yes it is fair.

I actually dont have an issue at all with Saracens. They have done what they did to be able to meet the challenge of the Prem and Euro challenges.

And Exeter lost because they werent good enough...simply as that.

Relegation was the only fair result/punishment and deterrent to future salary cap abusers.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Khouli Khan wrote:

king_carlos wrote:Agree with that LT. The calls for Sarries to be relegated when there is nothing in the regs to enforce that are ridiculous.

No they're not. The fact that the regs don't call for relegation as punishment, doesn't make the punishment fair.

For a lot (a bloody lot) of people, fair punishment would have been relegation and stripping of titles won under the period in question.

It is fair according to the law laid down by the governing association...so yes it is fair.

I actually dont have an issue at all with Saracens. They have done what they did to be able to meet the challenge of the Prem and Euro challenges.

And Exeter lost because they werent good enough...simply as that.

1. Yes, but to do so, they cheated;

2. How can you possibly know that? You can't - Exeter Chiefs were good enough to finish top of the league and to reach then reach the final. They were beaten by cheats - now proven to be cheats who were 'punished'. Would Saracens have been in a position to win the title if they hadn't cheated - well, lets just put it like this, the playing field may have been a bit more level.

People making apologies for Saracens need their heads looking at. Unless of course they think that it's alright for their own team to be habitually beaten by a team known to be cheating - not obviously, an issue for Falcons - so I can understand your sympathy.

Ah put your dummy back in your pram man.

The real world...people look to take advantage of situations. They didnt break the actually salary cap...they did it other ways.

Exeter werent good enough...simply as that.

And what was your point about me being a falcons fan? Im sure its not something i havent heard before...

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ah put your dummy back in your pram man.

The real world...people look to take advantage of situations. They didnt break the actually salary cap...they did it other ways.

Exeter werent good enough...simply as that.

And what was your point about me being a falcons fan? Im sure its not something i havent heard before...

Yes, nicely structured reply... not.

1. They cheated, they were found guilty of cheating, and they were punished for cheating. What part of 'they cheated' don't you understand?

2. They might have been if Saracens hadn't cheated - i'm not sure which part of that you don't understand either?

Khouli Khan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ah put your dummy back in your pram man.

The real world...people look to take advantage of situations. They didnt break the actually salary cap...they did it other ways.

Exeter werent good enough...simply as that.

And what was your point about me being a falcons fan? Im sure its not something i havent heard before...

Yes, nicely structured reply... not.

1. They cheated, they were found guilty of cheating, and they were punished for cheating. What part of 'they cheated' don't you understand?

2. They might have been if Saracens hadn't cheated - i'm not sure which part of that you don't understand either?

They did what they had to do to win.

Everyone cheats....Welcome to the real world.

Less of the personal insults please GF, you are better than that.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Khouli Khan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Ah put your dummy back in your pram man.

The real world...people look to take advantage of situations. They didnt break the actually salary cap...they did it other ways.

Exeter werent good enough...simply as that.

And what was your point about me being a falcons fan? Im sure its not something i havent heard before...

Yes, nicely structured reply... not.

1. They cheated, they were found guilty of cheating, and they were punished for cheating. What part of 'they cheated' don't you understand?

2. They might have been if Saracens hadn't cheated - i'm not sure which part of that you don't understand either?

They did what they had to do to win.

Everyone cheats....Welcome to the real world. Go back to kindergarten.

What an utterly pathetic response.

Everybody does not cheat actually. Those that do cheat and caught are rightly punished in sport - illegal drugs, sand papering cricket balls etc. there have been many occurrences. It is not alright to cheat, and not everybody does it.

I suggest its you who 'goes back to kindergarten', or otherwise come up with a rational point of view that doesn't make you look like more of a 'child' than it does already.

Your wrong, those that push the boundaries DO win...but as LT says...ill leave it there.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Your wrong, those that push the boundaries DO win...but as LT says...ill leave it there.

You obviously don't know the difference between 'pushing boundaries' which is not cheating, and 'cheating' which is, actually, 'cheating'.

I do suggest you leave it there, because it is clear that you can't have a sensible point of view if you don't understand the basic issues.

Oh i know the difference.....

No i have an honest point of view. I live in the real world...people cheat, people push the boundaries...its a fact of life. Get over it.

I've never stated that Sarries didn't cheat. They did and they got caught.

The logic of 'if Sarries didn't want to comply they shouldn't have signed up to these regulations' also works in reverse with Chiefs though in that 'if Chiefs thought the punishment within the regs weren't stringent enough then they shouldn't have signed up'. It cuts both ways.

As said in my initial post I don't like that the co-investments haven't been viewed as front loading though. It clearly is front loading as the players effectively earnt a shed ton of money for re-signing with Saracens. As such those payments should fall under the noose for each season those players are at the club.

If that had happened then you'd assume Sarries would have little choice but to immediately break up their squad to fit under the cap from now on. Given the squad was assembled outwith the rules that would have been a fair outcome and within the regulations that all teams signed up to.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Oh i know the difference.....

No i have an honest point of view. I live in the real world...people cheat, people push the boundaries...its a fact of life. Get over it.

No, what you're saying that it is effectively human nature to cheat, and they're all at it.

The first point is correct, the second isn't.

Lastly, whether or not people cheat is irrelevant, what your opinion espouses is that because everybody cheats, those caught doing it shouldn't really be punished. That is so inherently flawed that I don't think most people would know where to begin.

My own view is that there should not be a salary cap. Its restrictive. Its a matter of time that it will be increased then scrapped.

And the fact there is one...it is there to be broken. Human nature or the competitive drive to be first, call it what you will.

Its inevitable.

And lets not forget ...it wasnt just Saracens who were cheating!

I do agree with punishment...but in this case...the puishment was handed out as deemed fit by the powers that be....

Whats the issue.

The punishment has to meet the crime.

Theres been a million other examples.

Dean richards caught cheating with blood capsules. Banned for 3 years. Was that enough? Who knows.

Someone eye gouging someone else. I would ban them for life...thats far worse a crime than what Saracens have done..

GeordieFalcon wrote:My own view is that there should not be a salary cap. Its restrictive. Its a matter of time that it will be increased then scrapped.

And the fact there is one...it is there to be broken. Human nature or the competitive drive to be first, call it what you will.

Its inevitable.

And lets not forget ...it wasnt just Saracens who were cheating!

I do agree with punishment...but in this case...the puishment was handed out as deemed fit by the powers that be....

Whats the issue.

The punishment has to meet the crime.

Theres been a million other examples.

Dean richards caught cheating with blood capsules. Banned for 3 years. Was that enough? Who knows.

Someone eye gouging someone else. I would ban them for life...thats far worse a crime than what Saracens have done..

Ah.... but that wasn't what you said. You said, and I quote:

"I actually dont have an issue at all with Saracens. They have done what they did to be able to meet the challenge of the Prem and Euro challenges.

And Exeter lost because they werent good enough...simply as that."

So, lets start again.

1. They were cheating;

2. Can you explain how you know Exeter were not good enough to win, if at the time, they were playing a team that had cheated to gain an unfair advantage?

I dont have an issue with what Saracens did. Not at all. They bent the rules. They got caught. Others havent been punished.

Exeter werent good enough. They didnt win it. They're continued failings to fight both fronts proves that Saracens bending the rules has been the right decision.

GeordieFalcon wrote:I dont have an issue with what Saracens did. Not at all. They bent the rules. They got caught. Others havent been punished.

Exeter werent good enough. They didnt win it. They're continued failings to fight both fronts proves that Saracens bending the rules has been the right decision.  

So, on the one hand, Saracens bent the rules and were rightly punished, but on the other they bent the rules and it proved to be the right thing to do?

Are you for real?

Yeah...they knowingly bent the rules...because they will benefit much more from doing that...EVEN if they do get caught.

And that has been proved correct. Im sure financially, silverware etc etc...thwey are fare better off having taken the road they did...only having to cope with a few points deduction and financial penalty.

Do you not see it?

Away from sport, life is littered with "successful cheats" because the gains far outway the punishment they will receive.

From an ooutsider some of the outcomes which have been a suprise

The one that is not is that Sarries were punished to the rules and so were punished fairly for the cheating.  They can't be striped of tittles nor can they be relegated. Exeter should be pushing to get the rules changed now if they think it should be the rules.

Suprises
1. Sarries have been allowed to keep going as is and won't face any problem for this year till next year
2. The front loading of investments.  It means someone like Bath or Bristol (the ones with the money) to sign 20 star players on massive investments and small wages.  Take the hit one year in the belief they will finish 11th or higher and then use that squad unaffected by the cap.
This could also result in signing a play for next season but do an investment this season as a separate contract.  Is the investment wages this year, next year or not at all as not a player at the time.
3. The speed at which Sarries have gone through the negative points.
4 That a rule amendment hasn't been sent to the PRL and also the press signed by the other 12 teams calling for an immediate change to the Wage Cap

Brendan wrote:
3. The speed at which Sarries have gone through the negative points.

Not really, they've assembled a world class squad, and could (and do) field another if the 1st XV went sick.

They have this ability, because they cheated (and continue to cheat).

Saracens as with Bath cheated recently. I was surprised that the rules didn't state that titles would be stripped but you cant really change the rules afterwards.