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!

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

We agree, but we don't make the rules or sign up to them.

What I (and an awful lot of people) think is that fair punishment WOULD HAVE BEEN to relegate Saracens and strip them of their titles. It is understood that it can't be done retrospectively. But justice hasn't really been done in many peoples' eyes.

Khouli Khan wrote:

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).

Are they that much better than Exeter? Probably not by much who added Hogg themselves.
Sarries seem to have gone up another level when playing everyone except Exeter. This is on top of having a large number of players tired from the WC.

Brendan wrote:

Khouli Khan wrote:

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).

Are they that much better than Exeter? Probably not by much who added Hogg themselves.
Sarries seem to have gone up another level when playing everyone except Exeter.  This is on top of having a large number of players tired from the WC.

I suspect that the punishment they received has only sought to motivate them more - which is even more reason why a just punishment would have been to relegate them.

-35 points has hardly proved to be hugely debilitating, and as has already been pointed out, financially, they probably gained rather than lost as a result of their title wins v the fine.

What the cheating of the salary cap arguably allowed Saracens to do is build strength in depth - so the drop off to second choice playes is not massive:

Mako, George, Koch, Itoje, Kruis, Rhodes, Wray, Billy, Spencer, Farrell, Maitland, Barritt, Daly, Williams, Goode is very strong.

Barrington, Singleton, Figallo, Skelton, Kpoku, Isiekwe, Clark, Earl, Wigglesworth, Manu V, Lewington, Tompkins, Taylor, Segun, Malins is good enough to make the playoffs.

Khouli Khan wrote:

Brendan wrote:

Khouli Khan wrote:

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).

Are they that much better than Exeter? Probably not by much who added Hogg themselves.
Sarries seem to have gone up another level when playing everyone except Exeter.  This is on top of having a large number of players tired from the WC.

I suspect that the punishment they received has only sought to motivate them more - which is even more reason why a just punishment would have been to relegate them.

-35 points has hardly proved to be hugely debilitating, and as has already been pointed out, financially, they probably gained rather than lost as a result of their title wins v the fine.

By whom? Looking at their filed accounts nothing to suggest that at all.

LondonTiger wrote:

Khouli Khan wrote:

Brendan wrote:

Khouli Khan wrote:

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).

Are they that much better than Exeter? Probably not by much who added Hogg themselves.
Sarries seem to have gone up another level when playing everyone except Exeter.  This is on top of having a large number of players tired from the WC.

I suspect that the punishment they received has only sought to motivate them more - which is even more reason why a just punishment would have been to relegate them.

-35 points has hardly proved to be hugely debilitating, and as has already been pointed out, financially, they probably gained rather than lost as a result of their title wins v the fine.

By whom? Looking at their filed accounts nothing to suggest that at all.

G Falcon suggested it - and I tend to agree that "financially, silverware etc etc...they are far better off having taken the road they did...only having to cope with a few points deduction and financial penalty."

This is of course conjecture, but I don't think many people would trust the filed accounts that Saracens were posting....

It will be interesting to see what the mid season salary review throws up.

The argument has been that the bulk of the transgression has been the input of capital by Wray into players "businesses". The decision was made to treat the capital as the salary rather than any income. This of course made it a much bigger amount - but also meant it applied only in the seasons the capital was invested so is not a repeatable offence (thus how they might be under the cap now).

Certainly Sarries seem to believe they will get the all clear as noises about Jonny May (whom Leicester are unable to offer anything other than reduced terms and stay in the cap) moving to Saracens are getting louder.

Khouli Khan wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

Khouli Khan wrote:

Brendan wrote:

Khouli Khan wrote:

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).

Are they that much better than Exeter? Probably not by much who added Hogg themselves.
Sarries seem to have gone up another level when playing everyone except Exeter.  This is on top of having a large number of players tired from the WC.

I suspect that the punishment they received has only sought to motivate them more - which is even more reason why a just punishment would have been to relegate them.

-35 points has hardly proved to be hugely debilitating, and as has already been pointed out, financially, they probably gained rather than lost as a result of their title wins v the fine.

By whom? Looking at their filed accounts nothing to suggest that at all.

G Falcon suggested it - and I tend to agree that "financially, silverware etc etc...they are far better off having taken the road they did...only having to cope with a few points deduction and financial penalty."

This is of course conjecture, but I don't think many people would trust the filed accounts that Saracens were posting....

If HMRC and Companies House are among those then the signatory Directors could be spending some time at her Majesty's leisure. I see no reason for them to hide any income on their official accounts, bearing in mind they would still be making a loss thus not saving any corporation tax and HMRC can compare the income on the accounts vs the VAT returns.

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

The only cheating Bath are doing is taking money from fans and promising better results and performances.

Where is the proof of your allegation? I need to see figures not newspaper headlines!

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

The only cheating Bath are doing is taking money from fans and promising better results and performances.

Where is the proof of your allegation? I need to see figures not newspaper headlines!

Define cheating I suppose. Several clubs have found themselves slightly over the cap due to unforseen circumstances and copped a fine as a result. Quins and Tigers have had small fines for minor breaches. Tigers was when Manu broke through and because he played a certain number of games no longer counted as an academy player so his salary came under the cap creating a minor overspend.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

The only cheating Bath are doing is taking money from fans and promising better results and performances.

Where is the proof of your allegation? I need to see figures not newspaper headlines!

Define cheating I suppose. Several clubs have found themselves slightly over the cap due to unforseen circumstances and copped a fine as a result. Quins and Tigers have had small fines for minor breaches. Tigers was when Manu broke through and because he played a certain number of games no longer counted as an academy player so his salary came under the cap creating a minor overspend.

Sam, i didnt know that was part of the legislation...i thought (stupidly now that i come to think about it) that they can play as many games and it wouldnt affect the salary cap. But i suppose that makes sense.

i wonder if thats why so many of our academy players dont get the run outs that the fans are screaming for...becuase of our low budget!! Dean is forced to hold them back?

How many games can they play before they come under the cap?

Well, regardless, I know which team out of Salarysins and Chiefs has the moral high ground.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51009187

GeordieFalcon wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

The only cheating Bath are doing is taking money from fans and promising better results and performances.

Where is the proof of your allegation? I need to see figures not newspaper headlines!

Define cheating I suppose. Several clubs have found themselves slightly over the cap due to unforseen circumstances and copped a fine as a result. Quins and Tigers have had small fines for minor breaches. Tigers was when Manu broke through and because he played a certain number of games no longer counted as an academy player so his salary came under the cap creating a minor overspend.

Sam, i didnt know that was part of the legislation...i thought (stupidly now that i come to think about it) that they can play as many games and it wouldnt affect the salary cap. But i suppose that makes sense.

i wonder if thats why so many of our academy players dont get the run outs that the fans are screaming for...becuase of our low budget!! Dean is forced to hold them back?

How many games can they play before they come under the cap?

The issue was that at the time Leicester operated a base salary and a match fee. Now generally that would be fine as you just make sure that 23x22 match fees are included in the cap. However for academy players they only stay against the cap if they remain below a certain salary. Manu went over that so not only the match fees but also his base salary suddenly counted.

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

The only cheating Bath are doing is taking money from fans and promising better results and performances.

Where is the proof of your allegation? I need to see figures not newspaper headlines!

Bath were one of two teams cheating in 2013/14 and 2014/15. Bruce Craig joined forces with Wray to ensure that the punishments (and indeed conviction) were kept confidential. You can choose to ignore that if you wish, and continue to make unproven allegations about whether Saracens are still cheating.

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

The only cheating Bath are doing is taking money from fans and promising better results and performances.

Where is the proof of your allegation? I need to see figures not newspaper headlines!

Bath were one of two teams cheating in 2013/14 and 2014/15. Bruce Craig joined forces with Wray to ensure that the punishments (and indeed conviction) were kept confidential. You can choose to ignore that if you wish, and continue to make unproven allegations about whether Saracens are still cheating.

If they were cheating before they were caught and punished, and the team hasn't changed - oh hang on, they signed Daly - bet he was a bargain.... then they must still be cheating I would think.

Khouli Khan wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

The only cheating Bath are doing is taking money from fans and promising better results and performances.

Where is the proof of your allegation? I need to see figures not newspaper headlines!

Bath were one of two teams cheating in 2013/14 and 2014/15. Bruce Craig joined forces with Wray to ensure that the punishments (and indeed conviction) were kept confidential. You can choose to ignore that if you wish, and continue to make unproven allegations about whether Saracens are still cheating.

If they were cheating before they were caught and punished, and the team hasn't changed - oh hang on, they signed Daly - bet he was a bargain.... then they must still be cheating I would think.

I explained that several posts ago.

Lets try again.

1) The vast majority of the £1.8m overspend was an injection of capital into the Vunipola's "business" (ie buying houses)
2) That entire amount was classed as salary spend in the season(s) incurred.
3) There has been no capital spend this season.
4) Because of the way PRL accounted for it any profits (or rents not paid) for the Vunipolas lie outside the salary cap.

Now applying the £1.8m in a single season led to a much bigger fine, but meant that there was not an additional salary of (for arguments sake) 10% every following year. It could be argued that Saracens accepted a bigger fine rather than rosk going over the cap every year since (noting that they had hit the maximum points penalty).

LondonTiger wrote:

Khouli Khan wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

The only cheating Bath are doing is taking money from fans and promising better results and performances.

Where is the proof of your allegation? I need to see figures not newspaper headlines!

Bath were one of two teams cheating in 2013/14 and 2014/15. Bruce Craig joined forces with Wray to ensure that the punishments (and indeed conviction) were kept confidential. You can choose to ignore that if you wish, and continue to make unproven allegations about whether Saracens are still cheating.

If they were cheating before they were caught and punished, and the team hasn't changed - oh hang on, they signed Daly - bet he was a bargain.... then they must still be cheating I would think.

I explained that several posts ago.

Lets try again.

1) The vast majority of the £1.8m overspend was an injection of capital into the Vunipola's "business" (ie buying houses)
2) That entire amount was classed as salary spend in the season(s) incurred.
3) There has been no capital spend this season.
4) Because of the way PRL accounted for it any profits (or rents not paid) for the Vunipolas lie outside the salary cap.

Now applying the £1.8m in a single season led to a much bigger fine, but meant that there was not an additional salary of (for arguments sake) 10% every following year. It could be argued that Saracens accepted a bigger fine rather than rosk going over the cap every year since (noting that they had hit the maximum points penalty).

Well, we'll see about that won't we.....

I for one am not going to be caught as apologist for them.

We will see, hopefully after the mid season review. At least one other club is also having such a review.

LondonTiger wrote:We will see, hopefully after the mid season review. At least one other club is also having such a review.

No prizes for guessing who that is.

PS not being a Saracen's apologist. They cheated, they got caught, they got far and away the biggest punishment ever levied on a Rugby Union club.

I just struggle with "hang em, and flog em" types, who want to add new punishments over and above those allowed. Exeter quite possibly were cheated out of a tittle or two, but we will never know. If they got their way and Saracens were stripped of the title then I suspect for some the next demand would be that they be allocated to Exeter. However arguably Gloucester were cheated out of a place in teh final and Quins a place in the play-offs. (Heck arguably Tigers were cheated out of a play-off place in 2017/18)

LondonTiger wrote:PS not being a Saracen's apologist. They cheated, they got caught, they got far and away the biggest punishment ever levied on a Rugby Union club.

I just struggle with "hang em, and flog em" types, who want to add new punishments over and above those allowed. Exeter quite possibly were cheated out of a tittle or two, but we will never know. If they got their way and Saracens were stripped of the title then I suspect for some the next demand would be that they be allocated to Exeter. However arguably Gloucester were cheated out of a place in teh final and Quins a place in the play-offs. (Heck arguably Tigers were cheated out of a play-off place in 2017/18)

I have argued with my nearest and dearest that Saracens probably should be stripped of their titles - but that those titles could not be then given to the runners-up, as that opens a right can of worms. Rather, that those years be 'erased' from rugby history as far as honours go. Hell, I hate the play-off system too - you finish top - you're champions, simple as that.

No winner? Ah the Tour method. The did it like that because they couldn't ensure whomever they gave the title to wasn't also cheating. Be harsh on the others as we know that they weren't.

It would, however, open up a massive can of worms in regards to potential legal disputes and claims of a loss of income. That would drag the name of rugby further through the mud so it's best it's left well alone. I'm thinking something similar to the West Ham Vs Sheffield United legal case following the Tevez signing.

Exeter have given the £350k they got from the Saracens fine to charity.

LondonTiger wrote:Exeter have given the £350k they got from the Saracens fine to charity.

See my post of 13:28.

Well done to them I say.

If Sarries weren't as good as they were would Exeter have been as good as they are.  It's seems that Exeter have raised standards to catch up to Sarries
If Sarries hadn't have made the deals maybe Wasps or someone else may have had those players and won the league instead.  Exeter have benefited the most longterm from Sarries being so good.
Exeter as far as I know has not proposed changes to the Wage cap or got the backing of the other teams.  Until they do that they are just looking for attention but don't really want to change anything.  When they win the league this year will they harp on about Sarries robbing them of 3 in a row rather than enjoying being the winners.

Brendan wrote:If Sarries weren't as good as they were would Exeter have been as good as they are.  It's seems that Exeter have raised standards to catch up to Sarries
If Sarries hadn't have made the deals maybe Wasps or someone else may have had those players and won the league instead.  Exeter have benefited the most longterm from Sarries being so good.
Exeter as far as I know has not proposed changes to the Wage cap or got the backing of the other teams.  Until they do that they are just looking for attention but don't really want to change anything.  When they win the league this year will they harp on about Sarries robbing them of 3 in a row rather than enjoying being the winners.

Some of you lot go on as if Sarries are the hard-done by ones here.

They're not, they're cheats and teams like Chiefs, who haven't cheated, have built from scratch and not parachuted in a load of Saffas and Rand to kick-start the bloody franchise off, have every right to 'harp on' about being robbed. Because frankly, they were.

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

The only cheating Bath are doing is taking money from fans and promising better results and performances.

Where is the proof of your allegation? I need to see figures not newspaper headlines!

Bath were one of two teams cheating in 2013/14 and 2014/15. Bruce Craig joined forces with Wray to ensure that the punishments (and indeed conviction) were kept confidential. You can choose to ignore that if you wish, and continue to make unproven allegations about whether Saracens are still cheating.

Where is the documentation?/Proof of this.

Sounds like hearsay to me.

One thing for certain Sarries are cheats, and its a fact nothing has changed for this season, they are still at it.

Relegation should be the only option once this seasons investigation is over.

Clearly we're all at a state of lets agree to disagree here, otherwise this will just go round and round in a boring debate going nowhere.

GeordieFalcon wrote:Clearly we're all at a state of lets agree to disagree here, otherwise this will just go round and round in a boring debate going nowhere.

on a forum, I ask you!

Oh i love a good debate TH...no doubt about that...but this one just seems to be gonig round and round and round

There are now things to discuss once more. Ring fencing is a matter of time. Is this then tied up to another increase in salary caps perhaps tied to how many players you 'develop'?

TightHEAD wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:

TightHEAD wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote: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.

The only cheating Bath are doing is taking money from fans and promising better results and performances.

Where is the proof of your allegation? I need to see figures not newspaper headlines!

Bath were one of two teams cheating in 2013/14 and 2014/15. Bruce Craig joined forces with Wray to ensure that the punishments (and indeed conviction) were kept confidential. You can choose to ignore that if you wish, and continue to make unproven allegations about whether Saracens are still cheating.

Where is the documentation?/Proof of this.

Sounds like hearsay to me.

One thing for certain Sarries are cheats, and its a fact nothing has changed for this season, they are still at it.

Relegation should be the only option once this seasons investigation is over.

Given that Bath and Sarries have been named frequently by commentators and journalists as those who were caught in 2013/14 and 2014/15 without either side denying it or taking action I'd say it's fair to assume some truth to the rumours. Several club chairmen mentioned Bath and Sarries back then when addressing fans forums on the issue - which surprised me at the time.

My understanding was that several teams were guilty of overstepping slightly with injury dispensation and loan signings, claiming negligence when in reality they likely knew. Bath and Sarries were taking the Michael though, everyone (except Falcons I believe?) agreed to sweep it under the carpet and get their acts together. Now Sarries have been caught taking the p*** yet again.

I agree that I don't think Sarries are under the cap now without significant measures being taken before the end of the season. There are rumours that Michael Rhodes is being released mid-season, given he hasn't featured yet that'd be a chunk out the cap.

No 7&1/2 wrote:There are now things to discuss once more. Ring fencing is a matter of time. Is this then tied up to another increase in salary caps perhaps tied to how many players you 'develop'?

I expect a change in marquee player rules. I like the rule stopping players signed from other Prem clubs being a marquee in their first or second season.

The second marquee needing to be signed from outside the Prem might change though I imagine. Clubs such as Sarries (Itoje and Farrell) and Tigers (Ford and Manu) will have two England players as their highest paid next season but can't have both as marquees.

That to me seems to make it harder to retain star England players than sign from overseas. Not really the purpose of the cap.

Makes sense for something like that to happen Carlos.
The interim chief exec has indicated that people will be moved on unless they accept a pay cut. Also says that appearances matter now ie let's not let anyone leave and say that none of the players care about money?!

Lifted the quotes from the beeb:
'Obviously it's a difficult time for the club and we want to bring certainty as quickly as possible," he said.

"I think the first step is really to demonstrate, unequivocally, that we are operating within the salary cap in the current season, in the 2019-2020 season, and that is really a challenge on two levels. It's a challenge with spreadsheets and calculators and the numbers, but it's also a challenge in terms of perception.

"The uncertainty is unhelpful within the club and throughout the league and, in fact, English rugby generally.

"So we want to try to draw a line under this matter as soon as possible, but equally we need to be mindful that these measures potentially involve individuals and we need to be sensitive to their needs and to make sure things are done correctly. So we want to move with speed, but also with care."

Significant releases over the summer:

Schalk Burger
Christopher Tolofua
Sione Vailanu
Marcello Bosch

Significant re-signings/signings for this season:

Itoje re-signing - must be at least a £500k increase given his rumoured £750k/pa and previous contract being first one out the academy
Skelton - Re-signed on bigger wage
Singleton - Similar wage to Tolofua you'd imagine
Daly - Bosch was rumoured to be around £250-300k, Daly a lot more

I don't see how the numbers add up even with the co-investments not counting as salary for this season. Itoje might be their first marquee now but that just means Farrell's similarly gigantic wage (circa £700k) will be in the cap instead.

The do have till the end of the season to make cuts if needed to get under the cap.

Isiekwe, Kpoku (apparently already signed with Saints), Malins and Lozowski will be on most clubs radar. Squad players such as Woolstencroft, Ralph Adams-Hale and Matt Gallagher are out of contract too, would add to several clubs squads.

Mark Evans (ex-Saracens and Quins) is on the Times Ruck podcast this week. He speaks about his time with the Rugby League cap in Australia. Until the Roosters this year, he said it was rare for teams to be able to back up winning a title. If a team is spending to the cap, then a victory will inevitably increase the value of a number of the squad, so you have to let some people go. One thing you definitely don't see is a club signing high-priced established internationals when they are already spending to the limit.

Evans claims he can name eight English Premiership clubs who have exceeded the cap for one reason or another, so he's less inclined to pile onto Saracens, while recognizing the obvious warning signals (he's friendly with Wray).

The Saracens squad could soon be dismantled in order for the club to comply with salary cap rules this season, according to interim chief executive Edward Griffiths "It's too early to say what we will do, but anybody running a business or anybody running any organisation who, for whatever reason, needs to reduce the salary bill has two fundamental choices, One would be to reduce the head count and the other would be for people to take a pay cut. Now I'm not saying either or both are necessary, but those would be the two options or a combination of the two."

Off the back of the PRL findings I think most of us found it hard to believe that the current Saracens squad could be within the salary cap for the 2019/20 season.  The options open to Saracens to take any significant action mid-season appear somewhat limited and seem to rely upon the players agreeing collectively to take a pay cut or for some of the big earners agreeing to have their contract terminated.  I am guessing there is not much if any capacity for clubs to take on players in the Premiership, so would need to rely on picking up a contract in France, Japan or South Africa.  However, looking at the number of players coming over to England from South Africa, the money seems to be lacking in their club game.

You'd imagine the easiest think for Sarries to do is agree to release Williams earlier, as he hasn't played this season none of his salary will count towards the cap.

Ed Griffiths speaks with forked tongue. (I am biased though).

Having seen all his quotes he kind of says yes they may be over the cap at the moment but he needs to check and prove they are not. I am aware they may well be over but they feel not by a huge amount (ie not enough to trigger maximum penalties). Of course they are getting their accountants to see what they can offset and where.

The easiest solution for this season would be to release Williams and if he was the Marquee Player, move Skelton into that slot. Their big issue is next season as current new contract deals take them well over so they have to cut their cloth.

I believe that Griffiths is also try to accuse others of exceeding the cap by 6 figure sums.

Are we coming to a point where the cap may be scrapped or raised quite significantly?

GeordieFalcon wrote:Are we coming to a point where the cap may be scrapped or raised quite significantly?

I would certainly hope not. That would be the start of a slippery slope and Rugby would end up like football (relatively speaking financially).

i would agree, but i think its inevitable as the sport grows. It will be more and more difficult to keep the salary cap down.

formerly known as Sam wrote:You'd imagine the easiest think for Sarries to do is agree to release Williams earlier, as he hasn't played this season none of his salary will count towards the cap.

The only other member of their squad who would qualify as second marquee is Rhys Carre. Given he signed prior to making his Wales debut that would unlikely remove much from the cap.

Rumours already that Rhodes will be released mid-season.

I cant believe there is all this fuss over a salary cap that no one pays any attention to anyway.   The English clubs are splurging any new cash on foreign players in their league - only 65% at best are English-qualified. And it’s going downhill.

I can see CVC insisting on it being raised to the French level or just dropped.  

They’ll make out like bandits for a number of years and leave a hollowed-out corpse at the end.

Rugby - a history of the former game 1880-2040 will make fascinating reading for our grandkids.

king_carlos wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:You'd imagine the easiest think for Sarries to do is agree to release Williams earlier, as he hasn't played this season none of his salary will count towards the cap.

The only other member of their squad who would qualify as second marquee is Rhys Carre. Given he signed prior to making his Wales debut that would unlikely remove much from the cap.

Rumours already that Rhodes will be released mid-season.

Good point well made. Might be a case of every penny counts by the end of the season though.

I suspect there might be a team or two with injury dispensation options looking at Rhodes if he gets released early. As long as his injury isn't too severe he'll come back in towards the business end of the season and be a really good signing for someone.

Rhodes is a cracking player so he should get picked up unless it's season/career ending issues. Smurf would have given an arm and leg for Rhodes at Tigers last season but with Liebenberg and Taufua signed, plus Lewis and Reffell coming through the back row is looking much better. Still hurts that Will Evans is no longer here though.

Other than Rhodes and Williams the bigger earners in Sarries squad have already played this season so they don't have many options to shed cap this term. Goode picked up his injury in a Premiership game for instance so asking him to sit the season out wouldn't exempt his salary from the cap.

Seems like Williams might be leaving early and heading back to Wales

GeordieFalcon wrote:Are we coming to a point where the cap may be scrapped or raised quite significantly?

It's been raising and additional dispensations added every few years, usually as part of the backdoor agreement to close certain loopholes.

I doubt it will get scrapped any time soon though, its I everyone's interests to keep the Jeff competitive and keep a lid on wage inflation. Theres still more money and interest in the Premiership fixtures than there is europe too.

The next big change will be scrapping relegation.

Exwter have shown they can keep pace with a financially viable model and within the cap. It can be done. Investors are more likely to put money in if it's a stable investment, ring fencing brings that.

Saracens will have to look to shift a few big earners and could end up doing what Togers had to a few years back topping up players wages who are on other teams books to pay put their contracts.

In regard to the ignorant comments by our Irish friend above the Jeff is approx 70% EQ, and that has not changed significantly in its entire history. Theres more english qualified players getting regular top tier club rugby than there is for any of the other Lions nations, elite player numbers isn't a problem for them and never has been. That they still cant find a top class 9 or 15 isn't down to a couple of second choice welsh lads filling up rosters.

Brendan wrote:Seems like Williams might be leaving early and heading back to Wales

Along with early releases for Mike Rhodes, Juan Figallo and Calum Clark. Apparently those 3 and Williams will all be gone by the end of the month.

Gooseberry wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:Are we coming to a point where the cap may be scrapped or raised quite significantly?

It's been raising and additional dispensations added every few years, usually as part of the backdoor agreement to close certain loopholes.  

I doubt it will get scrapped any time soon though, its I  everyone's interests to keep the Jeff competitive and keep a lid on wage inflation. Theres still more money and interest in the Premiership fixtures than there is europe too.

The next big change will be scrapping relegation.

Exwter have shown they can keep pace with a financially viable model and within the cap. It can be done. Investors are more likely to put money in if it's a stable investment, ring fencing brings that.

Saracens will have to look to shift a few big earners and could end up doing what Togers had to a few years back topping up players wages who are on other teams books to pay put their contracts.

In regard to the ignorant comments by our Irish friend above the Jeff is approx 70% EQ, and that has not changed significantly in its entire history. Theres more english qualified players getting regular top tier club rugby than there is for any of the other Lions nations, elite player numbers isn't a problem for them and never has been. That they still cant find a top class 9 or 15 isn't down to a couple of second choice welsh lads filling up rosters.

Is that as a percentage of total players in the Prem or total in number in the entire league?