Wage cap - Updated with news on Saracens Punishment

by No 7&1/2 Tue Mar 05, 2019 4:30 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 king_carlos Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:12 pm

quinsforever wrote:
king_carlos wrote:The salary cap regulations state that the side being promoted from the Championship have to be able to prove they were within the cap for 2 years prior to being promoted. This rule is clearly in place to stop clubs front loading contracts whilst in the championship to build a squad that can gain promotion.

If Sarries can't get under the cap for this season could that then mean they can't get promoted again until 2022/23?
i think you may have that wrong.

they need to provide info about the previous 2 years, but they only need to be under the cap for the last 28 days before going UP. Premiership Salary Regulations section 15.1 and 4.4

In which case would they have to provide access to the books for this season that they have apparently refused currently?

More pertinently, if they have indeed refused PRL access to the books as some have suggested then how bad is the overstep?

Lots of speculation involved but Tony Rowe (yes he's been wrong in some circumstances during this saga) wouldn't publicly say that they refused access to the books and chose relegation instead if he feared litigation due to it being false. Also speculative, but Sarries presumably wouldn't refuse access to this seasons books unless it stood to damage their reputation further.

As Lord Dyson has said the secrecy and speculation it leads to is helping no-one in this regard.

by Heaf Mon Jan 20, 2020 7:49 pm

quinsforever wrote:
king_carlos wrote:The salary cap regulations state that the side being promoted from the Championship have to be able to prove they were within the cap for 2 years prior to being promoted. This rule is clearly in place to stop clubs front loading contracts whilst in the championship to build a squad that can gain promotion.

If Sarries can't get under the cap for this season could that then mean they can't get promoted again until 2022/23?
i think you may have that wrong.

they need to provide info about the previous 2 years, but they only need to be under the cap for the last 28 days before going UP. Premiership Salary Regulations section 15.1 and 4.4

What's the point of that then - why provide info if it doesn't matter how much they have spent?

by Sgt_Pooly Mon Jan 20, 2020 11:10 pm

Khouli Khan wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:
TJ wrote:
and says all routes to remedy the situation were closed off
They are now in January. they were not at the beggining of the season. Signing Daly may well have been the last straw. Overspend the salery cap then recruit more expensive players?

Does anyone else think they should be thrown out of the european cup as well? BY being in breech of their home leagues rules they are not eligible for the euro cup. It could be done now with no disruption to the cup

This is getting a bit silly I think.

No, they shouldn't be thrown out of the European Cup.....I hope they go on and win the thing to be honest.

Don't be daft.

There isn't a cap in the European Cup, but Saracens are playing with a team that's been bought with stupid money and cheating. The only reason Saracens are in Europe in the first place is because they cheated to gain league success.

Anyone wishing them well ought to have their head examined.

1, I'm not being "daft" and 2, No I don't need my head examined.

The only people that have a right to be upset/outraged are those involved in the Premiership, whether that be the fans, players etc. Sarries have bent the rules that the other 12 clubs have agreed to and these are completely self imposed. It's a made up figure that all clubs in the AVIVA PREMIERSHIP should stick to, to produce a competitive league. There is no cap in European rugby......if you really need to get outraged over something, take it out on Toulon and their apparent 15m or so wage cap which they go over every year.

A lot of this reminds me of one of the big problems we have in UK/Ireland these days....people just love to be outraged. It may have absolutely nothing to do them, but they will still want to be annoyed.

I'm a Newcastle fan by the way and we were relegated last season, spending well under (reported over 2m under) the salary cap. If anybody should be annoyed it's us.

by Khouli Khan Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:07 am

quinsforever wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:What have the rfu got to do with it?

1) Nothing, as they have only superficial governance of the Premiership

or

2) They are complicit with the club that has perpetrated the biggest heist in sporting history. A club so evil that Kim Jong-Un is a fan. A club so pernicious that even the arch cynic that is SecretFly (love ya really) has grudging respect.

The real issue is that the Salary Cap manager has, until now, been required to work only from the information submitted by the clubs. There could be other teams deliberately breaking the cap, though nowhere near to the level Sarries did, who have utilised the same evasion. This though is not an RFU thing, it is a PRL thing. Which we should all remember is owned by the clubs.

In rugby terms, they have - pretty much.

Saracens are cheats, and to some people, that within sport is a truly evil crime - in fact, there can be little worse. And its about time some people woke up to the disrepute they've brought to the sport.
histrionics

who's to say they couldnt have won at least the premiership while staying within the cap? certainly a valid argument given the quality of their academy products, especially if there were not able to make it through to the knockout stages of Chumps Cup with a smaller squad.

Now....why would a (I assume to be) Quins supporter be playing devil's advocate with regards to the 'what ifs' of cheating v not cheating I wonder....

by maestegmafia Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:11 am

Khouli Khan wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:What have the rfu got to do with it?

1) Nothing, as they have only superficial governance of the Premiership

or

2) They are complicit with the club that has perpetrated the biggest heist in sporting history. A club so evil that Kim Jong-Un is a fan. A club so pernicious that even the arch cynic that is SecretFly (love ya really) has grudging respect.

The real issue is that the Salary Cap manager has, until now, been required to work only from the information submitted by the clubs. There could be other teams deliberately breaking the cap, though nowhere near to the level Sarries did, who have utilised the same evasion. This though is not an RFU thing, it is a PRL thing. Which we should all remember is owned by the clubs.

In rugby terms, they have - pretty much.

Saracens are cheats, and to some people, that within sport is a truly evil crime - in fact, there can be little worse. And its about time some people woke up to the disrepute they've brought to the sport.
histrionics

who's to say they couldnt have won at least the premiership while staying within the cap? certainly a valid argument given the quality of their academy products, especially if there were not able to make it through to the knockout stages of Chumps Cup with a smaller squad.

Now....why would a (I assume to be) Quins supporter be playing devil's advocate with regards to the 'what ifs' of cheating v not cheating I wonder....

Would the academy product have advanced so fast if they didn’t have so many class players around them to learn from?

by No 7&1/2 Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:12 am

And why havent you answered those simple questions yet khan? I wonder ....

by Khouli Khan Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:18 am

Sgt_Pooly wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:
TJ wrote:
and says all routes to remedy the situation were closed off
They are now in January. they were not at the beggining of the season. Signing Daly may well have been the last straw. Overspend the salery cap then recruit more expensive players?

Does anyone else think they should be thrown out of the european cup as well? BY being in breech of their home leagues rules they are not eligible for the euro cup. It could be done now with no disruption to the cup

This is getting a bit silly I think.

No, they shouldn't be thrown out of the European Cup.....I hope they go on and win the thing to be honest.

Don't be daft.

There isn't a cap in the European Cup, but Saracens are playing with a team that's been bought with stupid money and cheating. The only reason Saracens are in Europe in the first place is because they cheated to gain league success.

Anyone wishing them well ought to have their head examined.

1, I'm not being "daft" and 2, No I don't need my head examined.

The only people that have a right to be upset/outraged are those involved in the Premiership, whether that be the fans, players etc. Sarries have bent the rules that the other 12 clubs have agreed to and these are completely self imposed. It's a made up figure that all clubs in the AVIVA PREMIERSHIP should stick to, to produce a competitive league. There is no cap in European rugby......if you really need to get outraged over something, take it out on Toulon and their apparent 15m or so wage cap which they go over every year.

A lot of this reminds me of one of the big problems we have in UK/Ireland these days....people just love to be outraged. It may have absolutely nothing to do them, but they will still want to be annoyed.

I'm a Newcastle fan by the way and we were relegated last season, spending well under (reported over 2m under) the salary cap. If anybody should be annoyed it's us.

1. So, can you just explain to me again how Saracens consistently qualified for top flight European competition and then have gone on to win it so often?

Saracens were so successful because they had a squad that enabled them to effectively play rotated European & a GP teams, week in, week out. They achieved that by cheating - probably at the expense of at least one other GP team each season. Their very presence in European competition was as a result of cheating in the league. The two are inextricably linked.

2. Getting relegated while spending over 2M under the salary cap seems like terrible club management to me. You have every right to be upset at such ineptitude.

by Khouli Khan Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:20 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:And why havent you answered those simple questions yet khan? I wonder ....

Oh do wrap up.

As others have already said or implied, I'm suggesting that the PRL and possibly the RFU were to some degree complicit in keeping this issue away from scrutiny for so long.

Other than that I can't prove anything.

by No 7&1/2 Tue Jan 21, 2020 2:28 am

Not asking you to prove anything. I'll just keep asking the questions then khan until you answer.

by **LondonTiger** Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:48 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not asking you to prove anything. I'll just keep asking the questions then khan until you answer.

Please don't. There will not be an answer.

by **LondonTiger** Tue Jan 21, 2020 3:54 am

Khouli Khan wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:And why havent you answered those simple questions yet khan? I wonder ....

Oh do wrap up.

As others have already said or implied, I'm suggesting that the PRL and possibly the RFU were to some degree complicit in keeping this issue away from scrutiny for so long.

Other than that I can't prove anything.

PRL agreed. Though as the PRL are owned by the 13 (?) shareholders what we are saying is all the clubs were complicit in keeping quiet. If that is what is being said then really no Premiership Team or fan should be outraged as their own team were complicit in the cover ups.

However not sure how the RFU can be complicit, which originally was the main point. They are not involved with the running of the competition and the financial rules are a private agreement between the PRL stakeholders.

by Khouli Khan Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:19 am

LondonTiger wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:And why havent you answered those simple questions yet khan? I wonder ....

Oh do wrap up.

As others have already said or implied, I'm suggesting that the PRL and possibly the RFU were to some degree complicit in keeping this issue away from scrutiny for so long.

Other than that I can't prove anything.

PRL agreed. Though as the PRL are owned by the 13 (?) shareholders what we are saying is all the clubs were complicit in keeping quiet. If that is what is being said then really no Premiership Team or fan should be outraged as their own team were complicit in the cover ups.

However not sure how the RFU can be complicit, which originally was the main point. They are not involved with the running of the competition and the financial rules are a private agreement between the PRL stakeholders.

Alright. How many England players did Saracens provide and what were the implications for the England team and its continued success on severe club sanctions?

by Khouli Khan Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:21 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not asking you to prove anything. I'll just keep asking the questions then khan until you answer.

Oh do bore off.

You'll get tired of asking long before I get tired of ignoring you, I can assure you of it.

by Gooseberry Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:38 am

Its not like all unions weren't knowingly complicit in pretending that players were amateur in the 80s. Theres an awful lot of hyperbole around this. Even the "covering up" of previous breaches was openly talked about and part of the rational for putting the cap tsar in place.
Trying to act all surprised that this was going on just suggests you've only be paying at best superficial attention to headlines.
The difference with Saracens in this case is that there had been a clear understanding at the last cap review that punishments were now in place, clearly defined, were going to be enforced and that everyone was supposed to be abiding by the spirit of the cap rather than looking for loopholes to exploit.
As other say this is outside the remit of the RFU, although they would have been remiss not to have had a strong awareness of what was going on and a direct interest in the elite players and overall direction of the club game here. So I dont think its unreasonable to point some fingers there when looking at the impact the fall out has on the short and long term health of the wider game in England.
Whats happened hurts everyone. The system was put in place to stop this happening, ideally they would've acted sooner. Did the world cup timing have an impact on that? I guess thats the one question that should be answered, Saracens have maybe got into a worse hole they might have done if they had been found in breach sooner.
But ultimately its still their executive who bear the blame for what happened. They were quite wilful and unrepentant in their actions, despite knowing the punishments. Whilst they clearly believed that their lawyers could argue it wasnt a breach they should at least have tested that first before ploughing head long on a course for the iceberg. Ambition is great and Saracens have done wonders bringing through quality players and helping them flourish, but the cost of that has pretty much wiped the club and will hurt the league, and possibly England, in the short to medium term.

Noones a winner in this except those who get off on making angry social media posts. But also its exactly the watergate scandal that some people are making it out to be.

by No 7&1/2 Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:39 am

Ha. You really havent seen me repeatedly ask questions that people are avoiding before then khan. I've asked you some questions which have nothing to do with proof. Care to answer them or are you just whingeing like a spoilt child?
I see LT is asking similar now and you still havent answered.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:46 am

Flats and Shanks, and the Rugby Pod are good this week. Both feature former players who, in one way or another, know people at Saracens.

Former Saracens player Jim Hamilton feels let down, and now concedes that what Saracens did has to be called cheating. David Flatman disappointed that the PRL cap managers couldn't find out what a journalist working on her own managed to uncover, especially with all the rumours flying around.

Venter appeared on the Rugby Pod, despite having had a big twitter spat with Andy Goode in the days before. He came across better than in his appearance on the BBC Rugby Podcast. He was more inclined to explain how he thought Saracens had done what they had done, rather than blindly defending it. He still personally believes Wray acted with good intentions, however. Venter also believes the squad will aim to stay together as much as possible, suggesting that McCall's comments about breaking the squad up have been misinterpreted, He thinks the current squad, was close to being under the cap, as there were sometimely injuries which meant the likes of Liam Williams could be excluded. Not enough to get them under, though.

Ultimately, though, he can't prove that, and we can't confim it without seeing the books.

Shanklin and Flatman belive the cap is meaningless unless it is managed transparently

by No 7&1/2 Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:49 am

I wonder if McCall is going to stick around. Mention of the players but theres got to be clubs circling him as well.

by Khouli Khan Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:52 am

Gooseberry wrote:Its not like all unions weren't knowingly complicit in pretending that players were amateur in the 80s. Theres an awful lot of hyperbole around this. Even the "covering up" of previous breaches was openly talked about and part of the rational for putting the cap tsar in place.
Trying to act all surprised that this was going on just suggests you've only be paying at best superficial attention to headlines.
The difference with Saracens in this case is that there had been a clear understanding at the last cap review that punishments were now in place, clearly defined, were going to be enforced and that everyone was supposed to be abiding by the spirit of the cap rather than looking for loopholes to exploit.
As other say this is outside the remit of the RFU, although they would have been remiss not to have had a strong awareness of what was going on and a direct interest in the elite players and overall direction of the club game here. So I dont think its unreasonable to point some fingers there when looking at the impact the fall out has on the short and long term health of the wider game in England.
Whats happened hurts everyone. The system was put in place to stop this happening, ideally they would've acted sooner. Did the world cup timing have an impact on that? I guess thats the one question that should be answered, Saracens have maybe got into a worse hole they might have done if they had been found in breach sooner.
But ultimately its still their executive who bear the blame for what happened. They were quite wilful and unrepentant in their actions, despite knowing the punishments. Whilst they clearly believed that their lawyers could argue it wasnt a breach they should at least have tested that first before ploughing head long on a course for the iceberg. Ambition is great and Saracens have done wonders bringing through quality players and helping them flourish, but the cost of that has pretty much wiped the club and will hurt the league, and possibly England, in the short to medium term.

Noones a winner in this except those who get off on making angry social media posts. But also its exactly the watergate scandal that some people are making it out to be.

I see the penny has dropped for at least one of you. There's hope for the forum yet.

by Khouli Khan Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:55 am

Rugby Fan wrote:Flats and Shanks, and the Rugby Pod are good this week. Both feature former players who, in one way or another, know people at Saracens.

Former Saracens player Jim Hamilton feels let down, and now concedes that what Saracens did has to be called cheating. David Flatman disappointed that the PRL cap managers couldn't find out what a journalist working on her own managed to uncover, especially with all the rumours flying around.

Venter appeared on the Rugby Pod, despite having had a big twitter spat with Andy Goode in the days before. He came across better than in his appearance on the BBC Rugby Podcast. He was more inclined to explain how he thought Saracens had done what they had done, rather than blindly defending it. He still personally believes Wray acted with good intentions, however. Venter also believes the squad will aim to stay together as much as possible, suggesting that McCall's comments about breaking the squad up have been misinterpreted, He thinks the current squad, was close to being under the cap, as there were sometimely injuries which meant the likes of Liam Williams could be excluded. Not enough to get them under, though.

Ultimately, though, he can't prove that, and we can't confim it without seeing the books.

Shanklin and Flatman belive the cap is meaningless unless it is managed transparently

And that's two of you - I now live in genuine hope.

by BamBam Tue Jan 21, 2020 5:58 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
Shanklin and Flatman belive the cap is meaningless unless it is managed transparently

This is so important going forward imo. The American leagues that use the cap system are unbelievably transparent, all bonuses, standard salary etc are all complete public knowledge, to the point that it drives much of the discussion about the game in general, from potential trades to expected roster cuts due to high bonuses being due

I get the argument about players needing their privacy, and we have the whole British attitude to no one knowing how much money someone makes, but surely at this level of elite sport that has to be overcome.

by No 7&1/2 Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:11 am

You going to answer those questions khan? Seems strange you cant expand on your own opinion.

by Sgt_Pooly Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:11 am

I starting to suspect KK is a reincarnation of a previous poster and any attempts to enter into a reasonable debate are futile..... Whistle

by No 7&1/2 Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:11 am

I get that impression pooly.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:38 am

Khouli Khan wrote:And that's two of you - I now live in genuine hope.

Well, if you've only just noticed what we are saying with those posts, then I'd have to conclude you haven't been paying attention to the discussions we've been having about the cap in this thread and others.

by quinsforever Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:57 am

More immediately, i wonder how Sarries will approach their remaining Premiership games?

if i were them i would:

- push for as many of their players to get national squad and age group squad callups as possible this season
- focus only on the Champs Cup as they cannot affect their own relegation in the League
- maybe save a few bullets to have an impact on other teams positions in the end of season playoff run-ins
- get players fit and strong for next season and try to keep as much of their setup together as they can, including academy and key players
- don't be afraid of having conversations with marquee names involving some element of a paycut

by quinsforever Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:01 am

Khouli Khan wrote:
quinsforever wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
LondonTiger wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:What have the rfu got to do with it?

1) Nothing, as they have only superficial governance of the Premiership

or

2) They are complicit with the club that has perpetrated the biggest heist in sporting history. A club so evil that Kim Jong-Un is a fan. A club so pernicious that even the arch cynic that is SecretFly (love ya really) has grudging respect.

The real issue is that the Salary Cap manager has, until now, been required to work only from the information submitted by the clubs. There could be other teams deliberately breaking the cap, though nowhere near to the level Sarries did, who have utilised the same evasion. This though is not an RFU thing, it is a PRL thing. Which we should all remember is owned by the clubs.

In rugby terms, they have - pretty much.

Saracens are cheats, and to some people, that within sport is a truly evil crime - in fact, there can be little worse. And its about time some people woke up to the disrepute they've brought to the sport.
histrionics

who's to say they couldnt have won at least the premiership while staying within the cap? certainly a valid argument given the quality of their academy products, especially if there were not able to make it through to the knockout stages of Chumps Cup with a smaller squad.

Now....why would a (I assume to be) Quins supporter be playing devil's advocate with regards to the 'what ifs' of cheating v not cheating I wonder....

if you can't play the ball, sure, play the man. from your response you obviously dont disagree with my comment, which i re-quote just here

"who's to say they couldnt have won at least the premiership while staying within the cap? certainly a valid argument given the quality of their academy products, especially if there were not able to make it through to the knockout stages of Chumps Cup with a smaller squad."

by WELL-PAST-IT Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:45 am

I do not get the two stage, fine/points deduct, and then relegation. There was no way that Sarries could not go over again as they had all the contracts still running and any payoffs to close out the contract would have gone against the cap. It would have been cleaner and more honest to just relegate and fine them. If they had given them until the end of this season to show that next season they would be under a reduced cap, they may have stood a chance as they could have cleared the expensive players out this year without affecting next seasons cap.

by **LondonTiger** Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:58 am

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:I do not get the two stage, fine/points deduct, and then relegation. There was no way that Sarries could not go over again as they had all the contracts still running and any payoffs to close out the contract would have gone against the cap. It would have been cleaner and more honest to just relegate and fine them. If they had given them until the end of this season to show that next season they would be under a reduced cap, they may have stood a chance as they could have cleared the expensive players out this year without affecting next seasons cap.

Noting:

1) The claim from Saracens was that the overspend was due to one off expenses and not replicated this season
2) The original investigation was made by an independent body and the punishments were decided by them using the PRL rule book and some "compassion"
3) The salary cap manager only ever has access to information provided by the clubs, unless an investigation is launched.
4) Saracens refused to open up their books for a full investigation of this season's compliance. We have to assume that they were still way over and using some "interesting" payment methods

Like most situations if you could wind back the clock, still knowing what we do now, a different approach may be taken. The PRL governance of this has been poor, but before blaming PRL solely it was Saracens who promised to comply in 2015 and then implemented a variety of methods to break the cap and build a squad they otherwise could not have managed. So far 3 executives who would have had responsibility or accountability for this cheating have left the club.

by Irish Londoner Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:04 am

BamBam wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
Shanklin and Flatman belive the cap is meaningless unless it is managed transparently

This is so important going forward imo. The American leagues that use the cap system are unbelievably transparent, all bonuses, standard salary etc are all complete public knowledge, to the point that it drives much of the discussion about the game in general, from potential trades to expected roster cuts due to high bonuses being due

I get the argument about players needing their privacy, and we have the whole British attitude to no one knowing how much money someone makes, but surely at this level of elite sport that has to be overcome.

I don't think it needs to go as far as naming what individual players earn but something like:
Total Salaries paid = £8 million
Marquee Players (2) = £1.8 million
Senior players (22) = £4.2 million
Junior/Development Players (12) = £2 million

Does any performance bonus count in respect of the cap - e.g. If a player is on £500,000 a year but if the club win the Premiership, a trophy, qualify for the play offs or Europe, they get a bonus is that part of their salary?

One thing I hope they change as/if/when the review the cap process is salaries for "home grown" players - if a club takes a player from junior to senior to international level then half their salary should be exempt from the cap.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:40 am

Jim Hamilton, when he heard Saracen had been asked to relinquish titles won when he was in the squad: "Oh no, are you telling me my rugby legacy will only be my time with Scotland?"

by Khouli Khan Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:01 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:And that's two of you - I now live in genuine hope.

Well, if you've only just noticed what we are saying with those posts, then I'd have to conclude you haven't been paying attention to the discussions we've been having about the cap in this thread and others.

Well, I may have missed those but patently, i'm not the only one not paying attention to the posts of others.

by Khouli Khan Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:05 am

Sgt_Pooly wrote:I starting to suspect KK is a reincarnation of a previous poster and any attempts to enter into a reasonable debate are futile.....

Congratulations, you've made it into Roget's Thesaurus under 'Irony' - considering you don't think that European success and league competitiveness are linked and that paying a team peanuts is going to keep them out of the Championship. I didn't think it was worth having a reasonable debate after that.

by No 7&1/2 Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:09 am

Any reply to jose questions yet Khan. I dont understand why you dont want to expand d your opinion?

by Pot Hale Tue Jan 21, 2020 9:11 am

Buying out someone's image rights is counted as income apparently.

by **LondonTiger** Tue Jan 21, 2020 10:22 am

This article is worth rehashing:

https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/premiership-rugby-salary-cap-rules-evasion-avoid-sale-sharks-owner-simon-orange-1317902

This was after the initial punishment on Sarries, but before the latest shenanigans.

Doubts about whether everyone is compliant:

"I don’t know [if every club is playing by the rules] but I know I have got 34 players and I’m struggling and others have 48 quality players and aren’t [struggling] so I suspect we’re not all the way there yet. But I’m pretty confident we will get there."

Why we need the cap:

"The [English club] game needs to sort itself out. We lost 50 million pounds [collectively] last year and that is currently being covered by a load of idiot owners, one of which is me.

"But if those losses become 100 million, and then 150 million and then 200 million, there aren't going to be that many people who either can or want to be able to afford it. If the losses went to 10 [million each per year] - which for instance if we didn’t have the cap, it would – there would be three teams playing each other, wouldn't there? So we have got to protect it.

And if he could spend more:

"We [Sale] would love another four players. [If we were] given the freedom I'd probably waste another two million quid a year as well."

by 123456789. Tue Jan 21, 2020 12:58 pm

In previous years if the top placed team in the Championship did not meet the criteria to play in the Premiership the bottom placed team in the Premiership maintained their spot. In the unlikely, hypothetical scenario that Newcastle Falcons collapse and they finish third or fourth in the Championship, what happens? Presumably Saracens have been relegated and will therefore definitely, unequivocally play in the second tier next year. Does the Championship therefore boil down, now, to a straightforward challenge between Newcastle and Yorkshire Carnegie (as the only teams with the requisite stadium capacity for Premiership rugby) as to who takes Saracens' spot? In effect guaranteeing Falcons Premiership rugby next year. Or is it the case that Saracens have been given another points deduction of 35 points (or whatever it takes to make "the great escape" impossible) to guarantee that they finish twelfth, and in the expected circumstances face relegation.

by king_carlos Tue Jan 21, 2020 1:04 pm

LondonTiger wrote:This article is worth rehashing:

https://inews.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/premiership-rugby-salary-cap-rules-evasion-avoid-sale-sharks-owner-simon-orange-1317902

This was after the initial punishment on Sarries, but before the latest shenanigans.

Doubts about whether everyone is compliant:

"I don’t know [if every club is playing by the rules] but I know I have got 34 players and I’m struggling and others have 48 quality players and aren’t [struggling] so I suspect we’re not all the way there yet. But I’m pretty confident we will get there."

Why we need the cap:

"The [English club] game needs to sort itself out. We lost 50 million pounds [collectively] last year and that is currently being covered by a load of idiot owners, one of which is me.

"But if those losses become 100 million, and then 150 million and then 200 million, there aren't going to be that many people who either can or want to be able to afford it. If the losses went to 10 [million each per year] - which for instance if we didn’t have the cap, it would – there would be three teams playing each other, wouldn't there? So we have got to protect it.

And if he could spend more:

"We [Sale] would love another four players. [If we were] given the freedom I'd probably waste another two million quid a year as well."

Thanks for posting that LT. Really interesting to get the view of another club owner who is being pragmatic but still honest.

by quinsforever Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:28 pm

not the same as Sarries cap cheating, but does seem like LOANS are being used to shift players off the salary cap while still having them available.

article from the telegraph

"More than half of top-tier English clubs are exploiting a Premiership Rugby loophole which allows them to potentially circumnavigate the salary-cap threshold, The Daily Telegraph understands.

Lord Myners, a City specialist overseeing a review of regulations following the Saracens scandal, will scrutinise a controversial clause allowing teams to write off wages by declaring “season-long” loans.

Critics claim the rule is open to manipulation as players can be recalled by clubs at no extra cost for minor competition matches so long as they are providing cover for an injured player. Players can then feature in the Premiership Rugby Cup or Shield without their salaries counting towards the cap. It appears clubs can face further costs over league appearances, however, initially on a “pro rata” basis.

Bath and Gloucester are known to be among a handful taking advantage of the chance to trim their declared salary-cap wage bill. The rule came to light when Zimbabwean lock, Mike Williams, and Argentine prop, Lucas Noguera, were loaned out separately by Bath to Yorkshire Carnegie in the Championship in September. Williams was immediately sent out on loan after signing for Bath, played for a matter of minutes off the bench in Carnegie’s 83-0 defeat at Nottingham, before returning to the West Country to feature in the Premiership.

Argentine loosehead Noguera was then sent out later the same month, coming off the bench for Carnegie in their 48-0 thrashing at the hands of Cornish Pirates, before returning to Bath the following Monday. Williams has since played five times for Bath, while Noguera has played just once, thanks, it would appear, to the clause set out in schedule one of the pay-cap regulations. Under the rule, loanees can replace long-term injured players so long as they are in broadly like-for-like positions. At Bath, back-row Taulupe Faletau and prop Nathan Catt are on the injury list.

In some cases, up to three players can also be declared as “loaned out” even if they remain at the club. Such arrangements at Gloucester drew criticism by Brendan Venter, the former director of rugby at disgraced Saracens, after he signalled he found it “really hard” to believe the £7 million limit had not been breached “here and there” by other clubs.

When pressed for his thoughts on BBC podcast Rugby Union Weekly, Venter said centre Henry Trinder, winger Charlie Sharples and full-back Tom Hudson had all been declared as season-long loan players to ensure the club stayed within the cap.

“You just look at what happened at Gloucester,” said Venter. “Where these three young players, Trinder, Sharples and Hudson, who went on loan before the season starts for the whole year, to get them outside of the cap. So, how’s that possible? Somebody must have got the budgets unbelievably wrong. No one told the players and you go, ‘Is this legal or is this moral? Can you actually do that?’ A lot of these things, I think, were happening with injuries.”

Gloucester declined to comment on Venter’s claims, but are understood to be confident they operated fully transparently and within the laws. Trinder had suffered a torn Achilles tendon, while Sharples was recovering from surgery at the start of this season.

Bath also declined to comment on Monday night, but had previously claimed the loan deals were part of a “mutual long-standing relationship with Carnegie”.

A well-placed source defended the loan arrangement, saying several other clubs were also utilising the clause, and said the law was crucial to allow clubs without the riches of teams such as Saracens to ensure they have access to talent."

by quinsforever Tue Jan 21, 2020 4:30 pm

particularly loved this quote which is basically saying we know what we did wasn't kosher but because other clubs did it...the PRL isnt likely to do anything about it!

"A well-placed source defended the loan arrangement, saying several other clubs were also utilising the clause, and said the law was crucial to allow clubs without the riches of teams such as Saracens to ensure they have access to talent."

by **Rugby Fan** Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:36 pm

Brian Moore spelled out the benefits of a larger, deeper squad.

https://twitter.com/brianmoore666/status/1219283847180845058

For those seemingly unaware, even before you consider the advantage that having more top class players than many opponents, here is why just having a bigger squad gives you an advantage.

1. Practice. Smaller squad, when injuries occur you don't have enough players to have pack v pack scrums and lineouts. You can fit other players in but the contest is not the same & often not possible. Similar for opposed back sessions. More players; more productive sessions

2. Dirt trackers - when you need 'cannon fodder' to hold tackle bags/shields, take hits in tackle practice, act as bodies to be cleared out at breakdowns, you can use non-star players - this lessens the chance of starting players being injured.

3. Rest - star players can rest during training sessions, whilst opponents are having to make their best players work more often. Less rest - more injuries; less sharpness over a long season.
Games - you can absent players from match squads so they get physical & mental rest.

4. Competition - if your squad stays fit you have fewer positions in which there is no proper competition. The benefit of this is self-evident to anyone who has worked within a squad.

5. Injuries - with bigger squads there is less pressure to bring back players, star and 'ordinary' and you don't have to risk playing someone in a crucial, or any, game until they are fully fit.

You can scan match-day lineups and say breaching the salary cap had no difference, but you can't be certain it would have been the same if the club had a smaller squad because you can't tell what effect injuries would have had. You also have to factor in the advantages listed.

On the BBC podcast Danny Care said he left Leeds when they got relegated, courtesy of Justin Marshall. The NZ had a relegation clause in his contract, and someone in Leeds admin had accidentally used that as the template for other players, which meant almost everyone had the same clause in their own contracts, despite not asking for one.

by Cyril Tue Jan 21, 2020 6:47 pm

I would love Sarries to win the Champions Cup this season. It would be good to beat Leinster on the way, a side with a similar spend who can rest a raft of players and still smash lesser-finances sides in their set-up. Leinster is basically IRFU.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue Jan 21, 2020 7:43 pm

RFU weighing in now:

Saracens could face further disciplinary action over their salary-cap breaches, with the Rugby Football Union understood to be considering an investigation to determine if the Premiership club should face charges for misconduct or bringing the game into disrepute, Telegraph Sport can reveal.

It is understood that the governing body is in the process of going through details of the decision by Premiership Rugby on Saturday to relegate the English and European champions to the Championship next season.

Also under scrutiny is the original 103-page judgment, which included a 35-point deduction as well as a £5.36 million fine for the club for breaching the salary cap over the previous three seasons, and was published in November following an independent hearing chaired by Lord Dyson.

It is thought that the RFU’s legal and governance team is reviewing the judgment to determine if any of the club’s misdemeanours meet the threshold of a misconduct or disrepute charge. If a prima facie case is proven, then disciplinary hearings could follow.

It is understood that the RFU has also privately expressed to Premiership Rugby that the report following the disciplinary hearing in November should be made public in some form. It is a view shared within Premiership Rugby, although chief executive Darren Childs stated that Saracens had asked for it not to be published.

RFU regulations state the governing body can sanction “any conduct, behaviour or practices on or off the playing enclosure, in connection with a match or the game generally, that is unsporting, unruly, ill-disciplined, brings or has the potential to bring the sport of rugby union, the RFU, or its commercial partners into disrepute, or which is prejudicial to the interests of the RFU or the game”.

It is not yet clear what range of sanctions Saracens could face if they were charged and found guilty of a misconduct charge, given the exceptional circumstances, although they would include a fine.

It is understood that discussions within the RFU have escalated since Premiership Rugby confirmed Saracens’ relegation.

On Monday, Bristol owner Steve Lansdown accused Saracens of bringing the game into disrepute by their actions, while on Tuesday night Graeme Cattermole, a former chairman of the RFU management board, said the governing body should take action.

“I feel sorry for the players but I believe those in charge of the club, such as members of the board, should be charged by the RFU for bringing the game into disrepute under rule 5.12,” said Cattermole.

“I feel that the action of exceeding the salary cap could only have been deliberate and undertaken knowingly by the individuals in charge and they should be disciplined.”

The future of Saracens players also remains unclear, although sources suggested that England head coach Eddie Jones may take a relaxed view about some of his leading internationals playing in the second tier next season if a conditioning programme was put in place to ensure his players arrived in camp ahead of Test matches fresh and in good shape.

Premiership Rugby on Tuesday vowed to take drastic action to ensure that the scandal never happens again.

Childs said Saracens would be barred from securing a place in the top-four play-offs, thus preventing them from reaching this season’s Premiership final at Twickenham in the unlikely event that they did so, even with the 35-point deduction.

The club finishing in fifth place would qualify in that scenario. Saracens are currently 29 points behind fourth-placed Sale, with a total of 70 points to play for.

Childs also stated that Premiership Rugby expected to have strengthened salary cap regulations and investigation powers by May following a review by Lord Myners to prevent another scandal occurring, having admitted that the current regulations had been founded on an element of trust.

“Saracens will be going to the Championship next year and then they will be coming back to a whole new set of salary-cap regulations because they will be post the Myners review and we are hoping we will get those new regulations adopted by April and May of this year,” said Childs.

“The salary-cap regs are really clear about what is in and what is out and, if there is any ambiguity, where you would go to to seek guidance on that. That is the part of the regulation that we have to uphold and police.

“That gives us certain powers to look at certain things and not look at everything. That is why Lord Myners’ review is really important because there are lots of things you hear, but we can’t deal with rumours. We have to deal with facts.

“That is why we kicked off the Myners review because we want these regulations dealt with in a way that makes sure nothing like this can ever happen again.”

Childs confirmed that the decision was taken to relegate Saracens because they had missed a series of deadlines and were “unable to provide the necessary confirmation that this year’s squad was compliant with the cap.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2020/01/21/rfu-considering-saracens-misconduct-investigation-possible-disciplinary/

by Cyril Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:00 pm

Has to be good I guess, at least compared with the IRFU who did nothing when their ‘club’ was involved in far worse.

by nlpnlp Tue Jan 21, 2020 8:39 pm

As a tax adviser of many years, no rules are water tight. Tax legislation runs to thousands of pages and has been evolving for hundreds of years, yet we still find plenty of loopholes to exploit. Saracens are guilty of 'salary cap evasion' which is illegal, whereas 'salary cap avoidance' is legal. If a team wants to bend/break the rules they will. The problem for Saracens was that they were 'too honest' and put things through the books, which ultimately were too easy to find. A wad of used £20 notes in a brown paper bag are a lot harder to find.

As a Sale fan am I horrified that Saracens broke the rules?- Not really. At any one time Saracens could quite possibly have had Itoje, Kruis and Isiekwe in an England squad. They therefore needed another 2 high quality second rows. So they then need Skelton and Kpoku. How much do the 5 of them cost? The salary for any player in the England squad should get scrubbed from the Salary cap calculations. That way teams are encouraged to recruit and develop England players. The one thing I would call Saracens for is the number of overseas players they recruit - Williams, Maitland, Taylor, Rhodes, Lamositele , etc. Williams is a decent player, but when you have Goode, Daly, Lewington, etc is he anything more than the equivalent of a child in a sweet shop?

I suspect the world will keep turning tomorrow even though Saracens have broken the rules. I remember the 'old days' when we were all amateurs and I was give 'mileage allowance' each week to play for my club, plus an all expenses paid Easter tour. New Zealand were for many years professionals - receiving boot money, when everyone else was amateur.

Best wishes to all the Saracens fans, it will simply be a one year blip whilst you are in the Championship and then back into the Premiership. Enjoy the new grounds you get to see and the real rugby fans you will meet. I am sure the next championship you win will be even sweeter.

by Sgt_Pooly Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:05 pm

Khouli Khan wrote:
Sgt_Pooly wrote:I starting to suspect KK is a reincarnation of a previous poster and any attempts to enter into a reasonable debate are futile.....

Congratulations, you've made it into Roget's Thesaurus under 'Irony' - considering you don't think that European success and league competitiveness are linked and that paying a team peanuts is going to keep them out of the Championship. I didn't think it was worth having a reasonable debate after that.

At no point did I say any of those things. I'm starting to remember why I don't come here so much these days now.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue Jan 21, 2020 11:11 pm

The status of the rest of Saracens' Premiership matches is now thrown into confusion.

Bristol's owner appears to want them scrapped.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/furious-club-owner-cant-fathom-why-saracens-are-allowed-complete-this-seasons-premiership-campaign-steve-lansdown

Interviewed on Talksport, Lansdown said: “I find it very strange in a way that they can continue their league programme this year with the same players. I find that unhelpful.

Then again, other teams might want to host Saracens, because the fixture could bring a good crowd. Whether they would be as keen to travel to Allianz is another matter. A lot of players don't care for artificial pitches anyway, so could skip the match if there's nothing at stake.

It's unclear how Saracens players feel about the Premiership now. They could be bloody-minded, and want to win every match. Some players might prefer not to take the risk of injury, with an eye on remaining healthy for another team to recruit them. Others, especially younger players, might see these matches as the only shop window they have to demonstrate their potential value to Saracens, or rivals.

by Khouli Khan Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:19 am

Rugby Fan wrote:RFU weighing in now:

Saracens could face further disciplinary action over their salary-cap breaches, with the Rugby Football Union understood to be considering an investigation to determine if the Premiership club should face charges for misconduct or bringing the game into disrepute, Telegraph Sport can reveal.

It is understood that the governing body is in the process of going through details of the decision by Premiership Rugby on Saturday to relegate the English and European champions to the Championship next season.

Also under scrutiny is the original 103-page judgment, which included a 35-point deduction as well as a £5.36 million fine for the club for breaching the salary cap over the previous three seasons, and was published in November following an independent hearing chaired by Lord Dyson.

It is thought that the RFU’s legal and governance team is reviewing the judgment to determine if any of the club’s misdemeanours meet the threshold of a misconduct or disrepute charge. If a prima facie case is proven, then disciplinary hearings could follow.

It is understood that the RFU has also privately expressed to Premiership Rugby that the report following the disciplinary hearing in November should be made public in some form. It is a view shared within Premiership Rugby, although chief executive Darren Childs stated that Saracens had asked for it not to be published.

RFU regulations state the governing body can sanction “any conduct, behaviour or practices on or off the playing enclosure, in connection with a match or the game generally, that is unsporting, unruly, ill-disciplined, brings or has the potential to bring the sport of rugby union, the RFU, or its commercial partners into disrepute, or which is prejudicial to the interests of the RFU or the game”.

It is not yet clear what range of sanctions Saracens could face if they were charged and found guilty of a misconduct charge, given the exceptional circumstances, although they would include a fine.

It is understood that discussions within the RFU have escalated since Premiership Rugby confirmed Saracens’ relegation.

On Monday, Bristol owner Steve Lansdown accused Saracens of bringing the game into disrepute by their actions, while on Tuesday night Graeme Cattermole, a former chairman of the RFU management board, said the governing body should take action.

“I feel sorry for the players but I believe those in charge of the club, such as members of the board, should be charged by the RFU for bringing the game into disrepute under rule 5.12,” said Cattermole.

“I feel that the action of exceeding the salary cap could only have been deliberate and undertaken knowingly by the individuals in charge and they should be disciplined.”

The future of Saracens players also remains unclear, although sources suggested that England head coach Eddie Jones may take a relaxed view about some of his leading internationals playing in the second tier next season if a conditioning programme was put in place to ensure his players arrived in camp ahead of Test matches fresh and in good shape.

Premiership Rugby on Tuesday vowed to take drastic action to ensure that the scandal never happens again.

Childs said Saracens would be barred from securing a place in the top-four play-offs, thus preventing them from reaching this season’s Premiership final at Twickenham in the unlikely event that they did so, even with the 35-point deduction.

The club finishing in fifth place would qualify in that scenario. Saracens are currently 29 points behind fourth-placed Sale, with a total of 70 points to play for.

Childs also stated that Premiership Rugby expected to have strengthened salary cap regulations and investigation powers by May following a review by Lord Myners to prevent another scandal occurring, having admitted that the current regulations had been founded on an element of trust.

“Saracens will be going to the Championship next year and then they will be coming back to a whole new set of salary-cap regulations because they will be post the Myners review and we are hoping we will get those new regulations adopted by April and May of this year,” said Childs.

“The salary-cap regs are really clear about what is in and what is out and, if there is any ambiguity, where you would go to to seek guidance on that. That is the part of the regulation that we have to uphold and police.

“That gives us certain powers to look at certain things and not look at everything. That is why Lord Myners’ review is really important because there are lots of things you hear, but we can’t deal with rumours. We have to deal with facts.

“That is why we kicked off the Myners review because we want these regulations dealt with in a way that makes sure nothing like this can ever happen again.”

Childs confirmed that the decision was taken to relegate Saracens because they had missed a series of deadlines and were “unable to provide the necessary confirmation that this year’s squad was compliant with the cap.”

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2020/01/21/rfu-considering-saracens-misconduct-investigation-possible-disciplinary/

If there are other teams in breach of the regulations (and there probably are at least two), and if the punishments continue to pile up on Salarysins, you can bet they're not going to go down without causing as much collateral damage as they possibly can. We won't hear the last of this for years.

by No 7&1/2 Wed Jan 22, 2020 2:28 am

what has it to do with the rfu. What jurisdiction do they have? In terms of saracens having tentacles in the prl what do you mean exactly?
Are Exeter guilty as they form part of the prl?

by Irish Londoner Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:13 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:what has it to do with the rfu. What jurisdiction do they have? In terms of saracens having tentacles in the prl what do you mean exactly?
Are Exeter guilty as they form part of the prl?

I don't know about the current case, but it was widely "alleged" by Brian Moore and others that one of the reasons that the 2015 salary cap investigation was kept under wraps and behind closed doors was due to pressure from the RFU, in that they didn't want the issue aired in public in the run up to the 2015 RWC for fear it would "damage the reputation of the game".

On that subject, I wonder if England had won the RWC and say for example Owen Farrell had then won SPOTY on the back of it or the usual MBE's/OBEs had been dished out would this all be out in the open now?

by No 7&1/2 Wed Jan 22, 2020 3:21 am

Cheers irish. I could understand the rfu but wanting this to come out before a home world cup but they have no say over the prl. Indeed we've seen the power struggle that they've had over the years so cant see the prl particularly wanting to bend over for the union. I think this being out in the open gives the rfu a chance to have more sway personally.

by Sponsored content