Wage cap - Updated with news on Saracens Punishment

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

First topic message reminder :

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

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

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

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

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

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

by Khouli Khan Wed 22 Jan 2020, 8:39 am

Irish Londoner wrote:
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?

'Known' more like.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 22 Jan 2020, 8:44 am

Are you able to answer those questions then khan. Easily done. Just your opinion. You can do it. Be brave.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed 22 Jan 2020, 9:11 am

Premiership Rugby boss Darren Childs has confirmed CVC is onside with the demotion of Saracens (which does lead me to wonder where we'd be if they weren't...)

Also reiterates that Saracens don't want the Dyson report published, making it sound like they have to agree before it can be made public.

To help restore trust, Childs indicated he would like to see the report into Saracens’ cap-busting behaviour released in full, rather than withheld at the request of Saracens’ lawyers, and would like the club to reconsider its stance.

“Premiership Rugby has got absolutely nothing to hide in that judgment. In fact, quite the opposite. It demonstrates we’ve got a good, well-enforced, fair salary-cap system. I must admit I am very minded to take that decision on again and look at whether we should be publishing these things. I would welcome the opportunity to set the record straight.

“It is very important to stress that we have specifically not been given that permission. We cannot publish Lord Dyson’s full decision regardless of what anyone would like us to do. Saracens are not supportive of that document being published.

“It was very much their lawyers’ decision that it should remain confidential. Why wouldn’t they want it published? That’s a question for them. But if they’re prepared to change their mind I would be prepared to discuss it with my board with a view to publishing it.”

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/jan/21/premiership-rugby-saracens-come-clean-salary-cap-report

by **LondonTiger** Wed 22 Jan 2020, 9:22 am

I listened to him being interviewed last night. It did sound as if PRL would publish the report if Saracens waived the confidentiality agreement. However right now their hands would appear to be tied - legally if not physically.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 22 Jan 2020, 9:38 am

Lifted these quotes from a guardian article. Hard to tell from print whether this is emotive, like khan above not really bothered about the rules themselves, or merely cynical.

Lansdown believes Saracens should not be allowed to play the remainder of the season with a squad who are unable to comply with the salary cap. “I find it very strange they can continue their league programme with the same players. I find that unhelpful,” he told TalkSport.

“At the end of the day they cheated and they have to accept their punishment. Anything they have achieved over the last couple of years is going to be tainted. It will stick for a while because everyone is going to be cognisant of the fact that it happened.

“They are making a lot of noises at Saracens. They have apologised, which is the first thing, and now we need to see what they are going to do to put things right. They committed a sin and they have to repent for it. They need to go through a period of rehabilitation back into the world of rugby.

“They have brought the game into disrepute. There are 13 clubs [the 12 Premiership clubs and Newcastle] who have all signed up to the salary cap and they have decided to put two fingers up to it and do their own thing. They feel almost aggrieved we are upset about it.”

Lansdown also believes Saracens should have been relegated sooner. “It should have happened quicker and sharper,” he said, but accepts the club now face a period of deep uncertainty. “The players have got some very difficult decisions to make, the management have got some very difficult decisions to make. They probably haven’t woken up to the reality of what is in store for them.”

There really does seem to be a lack of balance in the traditional print media on the whole thing one way or the other.

by Irish Londoner Wed 22 Jan 2020, 9:44 am

Khouli Khan wrote:
Irish Londoner wrote:
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?

'Known' more like.

There's a reason I used "alleged" rather than "known".

by **LondonTiger** Wed 22 Jan 2020, 9:51 am

Rival clubs were feeding information to Premier Rugby about Saracens’ suspected breaches of the salary cap, helping to put in place the investigation that resulted in the English and European champions being relegated.

Harlequins were one of the clubs that did their own investigations and compiled what The Times has been told was a “huge dossier”. The information was then passed on to Andrew Rogers, the Premier Rugby (PRL) salary cap manager.

The south west London club were working on their dossier towards the end of 2018, which is when PRL began its investigation. Harlequins started searching for information through Companies House, unearthing information about the network of co-investments that Nigel Wray, the then Saracens chairman and owner, had entered into with some of his players.

Harlequins also shared details about alleged property ownership in north London and the St Albans area and about farm ownership in South Africa.

Other clubs were also passing information to Rogers, The Times understands. It was felt that his one-man department was understaffed and could do with all the help he could get.

by Khouli Khan Wed 22 Jan 2020, 10:13 am

This is a battle for the heart and soul of RU.

It's worth remembering that it's highly likely that Salarysins will be promoted straight back into the Premiership.

Now you could argue that this happens most years anyway, with only two or three teams from the Championship genuine contenders for promotion – but, what this really represents is the Premiership having been ring fenced for a season by the back door. $aracens should have been expelled and forced to reapply to the league until they allow forensic accountants in. I believe there’s precedent for it in other sports with regards to cheating (not necessarily breach of wage caps).

by BamBam Wed 22 Jan 2020, 10:15 am

That must have come from players having discussions about the businesses etc being set up by Sarries players in partnership with Wray. Can fully imagine a Quins player (for example) hearing what was going on and asking for similar in his next contract negotiation

Crazy that Wray thought they'd get away with it

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

BamBam wrote:Crazy that Wray thought they'd get away with it

And they would have done if not for those pesky kids.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 22 Jan 2020, 10:22 am

Same questions still Khan.

You seem not to be able to rationalise this topic. Calling for ever more severe outcomes outside of what was agreed by everyone. Did Farrell fail to sign your autograph too?

by Brendan Wed 22 Jan 2020, 10:23 am

So now that effectively there is no relegation in the Prem this year do you think the lower teams should give the younger players in the squad more game time.

Obviously those looking at playoffs will still be playing their best game they can, but what about the other teams should they use it to play a more open style now the pressure is off.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 22 Jan 2020, 10:30 am

Brendan wrote:So now that effectively there is no relegation in the Prem this year do you think the lower teams should give the younger players in the squad more game time.

For various reasons we already have been. The rotation this season has been pretty good, with new players coming in alongside experienced ones, rather than operating two different sides. We need to continue giving guys like Heyes, Lewis, Reffell, White, Simmons, Hardwick, Olowefela & Steward gametime mixing them with the experienced players - but also looking to win every single home game between now and the end of the season and seek to be competitive away from home.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed 22 Jan 2020, 11:11 am

No 7&1/2 wrote:Same questions still Khan.

You seem not to be able to rationalise this topic. Calling for ever more severe outcomes outside of what was agreed by everyone. Did Farrell fail to sign your autograph too?

Don't think this avenue is worth pursuing, 7&1/2. Fortunately, there's plenty of good discussion on the thread, and probably more as news keeps coming out.

by Welshmushroom Wed 22 Jan 2020, 11:19 am

I wonder what happens if the England players stay at the club but are loaned out for the season.

If for example Premiership clubs have already spent their wage caps and therefore couldn't loan these players unless they had long term injuries or they didn't have to pay any of their wages with Saracens picking up the bill instead, would the scenario where these players are loaned to French clubs instead for a season (who I would assume would then pay Saracens a contribution) prohibite them from playing for England? Technically they would still be on an Saracens roster.

by Khouli Khan Wed 22 Jan 2020, 11:33 am

Welshmushroom wrote:I wonder what happens if the England players stay at the club but are loaned out for the season.

If for example Premiership clubs have already spent their wage caps and therefore couldn't loan these players unless they had long term injuries or they didn't have to pay any of their wages with Saracens picking up the bill instead, would the scenario where these players are loaned to French clubs instead for a season (who I would assume would then pay Saracens a contribution) prohibite them from playing for England? Technically they would still be on an Saracens roster.

I wonder how quickly the RFU will change the rules on selection of overseas players by England....

by Khouli Khan Wed 22 Jan 2020, 11:35 am

Rugby Fan wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Same questions still Khan.

You seem not to be able to rationalise this topic. Calling for ever more severe outcomes outside of what was agreed by everyone. Did Farrell fail to sign your autograph too?

Don't think this avenue is worth pursuing, 7&1/2. Fortunately, there's plenty of good discussion on the thread, and probably more as news keeps coming out.

I'm ignoring the ding-a-ling anyway. But, as more news comes out I will either be wrong or vindicated. If i'm wrong, i'm wrong and i'll admit it, if i'm right - well, we'll see what the response on here is.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 22 Jan 2020, 11:40 am

You're ignoring having to explain your opinion khan. You wont really be vindicated as you're not explaining yourself.

by Soul Requiem Wed 22 Jan 2020, 11:41 am

Khouli Khan wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Same questions still Khan.

You seem not to be able to rationalise this topic. Calling for ever more severe outcomes outside of what was agreed by everyone. Did Farrell fail to sign your autograph too?

Don't think this avenue is worth pursuing, 7&1/2. Fortunately, there's plenty of good discussion on the thread, and probably more as news keeps coming out.

I'm ignoring the ding-a-ling anyway. But, as more news comes out I will either be wrong or vindicated. If i'm wrong, i'm wrong and i'll admit it, if i'm right - well, we'll see what the response on here is.

So you're just taking a blind punt hoping you're right?

by Welshmushroom Wed 22 Jan 2020, 11:46 am

Khouli Khan wrote:
Welshmushroom wrote:I wonder what happens if the England players stay at the club but are loaned out for the season.

If for example Premiership clubs have already spent their wage caps and therefore couldn't loan these players unless they had long term injuries or they didn't have to pay any of their wages with Saracens picking up the bill instead, would the scenario where these players are loaned to French clubs instead for a season (who I would assume would then pay Saracens a contribution) prohibite them from playing for England? Technically they would still be on an Saracens roster.

I wonder how quickly the RFU will change the rules on selection of overseas players by England....

But thats exactly my question - If a player is registered at an English club and the loaned out (regardless of where to) wouldnt that automatically allow them to be selected as its an English club that has ownership over the player.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 22 Jan 2020, 11:47 am

Its yet to be decided shroom.

by BamBam Wed 22 Jan 2020, 11:55 am

This is probably the first case that will truly test the exceptional circumstances clause, as loud as the shouts were for Steffon Armitage a few years ago I don't think it was ever really that close to being invoked for him outside of the media and fans.

by Khouli Khan Wed 22 Jan 2020, 12:00 pm

Soul Requiem wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Same questions still Khan.

You seem not to be able to rationalise this topic. Calling for ever more severe outcomes outside of what was agreed by everyone. Did Farrell fail to sign your autograph too?

Don't think this avenue is worth pursuing, 7&1/2. Fortunately, there's plenty of good discussion on the thread, and probably more as news keeps coming out.

I'm ignoring the ding-a-ling anyway. But, as more news comes out I will either be wrong or vindicated. If i'm wrong, i'm wrong and i'll admit it, if i'm right - well, we'll see what the response on here is.

So you're just taking a blind punt hoping you're right?

Sure - my opinion is based on a hunch and I never said otherwise. So what - that's not allowed? I don't have to explain it, and I don't have to be right. But, I sure as hell haven't been proved wrong yet either. Some people are a bit too far up their own jacksies here I reckon.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 22 Jan 2020, 12:23 pm

Why bother with a discussion forum if you're unwilling or unable to explain your thoughts. Weird.

by Soul Requiem Wed 22 Jan 2020, 12:25 pm

Khouli Khan wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Same questions still Khan.

You seem not to be able to rationalise this topic. Calling for ever more severe outcomes outside of what was agreed by everyone. Did Farrell fail to sign your autograph too?

Don't think this avenue is worth pursuing, 7&1/2. Fortunately, there's plenty of good discussion on the thread, and probably more as news keeps coming out.

I'm ignoring the ding-a-ling anyway. But, as more news comes out I will either be wrong or vindicated. If i'm wrong, i'm wrong and i'll admit it, if i'm right - well, we'll see what the response on here is.

So you're just taking a blind punt hoping you're right?

Sure - my opinion is based on a hunch and I never said otherwise. So what - that's not allowed? I don't have to explain it, and I don't have to be right. But, I sure as hell haven't been proved wrong yet either. Some people are a bit too far up their own jacksies here I reckon.

When it comes to legal issues you do yes otherwise you're teetering on the edge of libel.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 22 Jan 2020, 1:02 pm

Welshmushroom wrote:I wonder what happens if the England players stay at the club but are loaned out for the season.

If for example Premiership clubs have already spent their wage caps and therefore couldn't loan these players unless they had long term injuries or they didn't have to pay any of their wages with Saracens picking up the bill instead, would the scenario where these players are loaned to French clubs instead for a season (who I would assume would then pay Saracens a contribution) prohibite them from playing for England? Technically they would still be on an Saracens roster.

I answered this on another thread. Head of RFU said that they have not made a decision:

England rules to be decided
There is no decision yet on whether Saracens players could keep playing for England if they move to a foreign club on loan next season.

The RFU has an agreement that all England players must play for an English club, barring “exceptional circumstances”. “Anything to do with exemptions and exceptional circumstances is a bit hypothetical at this stage,” Bill Sweeney, the RFU chief executive, said. “The first time we need to consider things like that are the autumn internationals.”

by Geordie Wed 22 Jan 2020, 1:03 pm

So will the salary cap now be overhaulled?

ANd if so..does that mean Sarries acan just loan out their players, take the hit in the championship with their academy players and come back with their full squad again - assuming the salary cap will have been increased?

by **LondonTiger** Wed 22 Jan 2020, 1:06 pm

GeordieFalcon wrote:So will the salary cap now be overhaulled?

ANd if so..does that mean Sarries acan just loan out their players, take the hit in the championship with their academy players and come back with their full squad again - assuming the salary cap will have been increased?

There is a review into the entire Salary Cap mechanic. For now we have no idea what will happen but I struggle to see the overall allowance increasing by a huge amount, certainly not by enough to facilitate Sarries overspend. However the entire framework is likely to be overhauled.

by king_carlos Wed 22 Jan 2020, 1:21 pm

I'm not surprised the RFU is looking at action.

The clubs get huge academy funding from the RFU (not to mention enjoying the profits of England age grade scouting and coaching through catchment areas) via the Professional Game Agreement between the RFU and PRL. To get access to that agreement you sign up with the PRL and hence the salary cap.

Sarries have put a huge amount into the coaching and nurturing of their impressive academy talent but it's built on infrastructure that clubs receive in part by virtue of agreeing to the cap, which is there to safeguard the long term financial viability of the game. There's certainly an argument for misconduct in that regard. Whether it would stand up in court is of course a different matter.

There is a significant level hypocrisy involved in Sarries arguing the cap is unfair to them as they produce academy players. The cap needs looking at to make it fairer on clubs providing international players no doubt - I agree almost entirely with the suggestions LT made earlier in this thread. The way some within Sarries have spoken about 'producing players themselves' you'd think that Nigel Wray found Owen Farrell abandoned on an ice flow in a wicker basket and nurtured him into the player he is single handed. The Sarries coaching set-up is outstanding but the academy is largely built on top of the funding and infrastructure the RFU provide.

by lostinwales Wed 22 Jan 2020, 2:13 pm

king_carlos wrote:I'm not surprised the RFU is looking at action.

The clubs get huge academy funding from the RFU (not to mention enjoying the profits of England age grade scouting and coaching through catchment areas) via the Professional Game Agreement between the RFU and PRL. To get access to that agreement you sign up with the PRL and hence the salary cap.

Sarries have put a huge amount into the coaching and nurturing of their impressive academy talent but it's built on infrastructure that clubs receive in part by virtue of agreeing to the cap, which is there to safeguard the long term financial viability of the game. There's certainly an argument for misconduct in that regard. Whether it would stand up in court is of course a different matter.

There is a significant level hypocrisy involved in Sarries arguing the cap is unfair to them as they produce academy players. The cap needs looking at to make it fairer on clubs providing international players no doubt - I agree almost entirely with the suggestions LT made earlier in this thread. The way some within Sarries have spoken about 'producing players themselves' you'd think that Nigel Wray found Owen Farrell abandoned on an ice flow in a wicker basket and nurtured him into the player he is single handed. The Sarries coaching set-up is outstanding but the academy is largely built on top of the funding and infrastructure the RFU provide.

I thought it was the wreckage from a meteorite.

by Khouli Khan Wed 22 Jan 2020, 2:27 pm

Soul Requiem wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Same questions still Khan.

You seem not to be able to rationalise this topic. Calling for ever more severe outcomes outside of what was agreed by everyone. Did Farrell fail to sign your autograph too?

Don't think this avenue is worth pursuing, 7&1/2. Fortunately, there's plenty of good discussion on the thread, and probably more as news keeps coming out.

I'm ignoring the ding-a-ling anyway. But, as more news comes out I will either be wrong or vindicated. If i'm wrong, i'm wrong and i'll admit it, if i'm right - well, we'll see what the response on here is.

So you're just taking a blind punt hoping you're right?

Sure - my opinion is based on a hunch and I never said otherwise. So what - that's not allowed? I don't have to explain it, and I don't have to be right. But, I sure as hell haven't been proved wrong yet either. Some people are a bit too far up their own jacksies here I reckon.

When it comes to legal issues you do yes otherwise you're teetering on the edge of libel.

Get from up your own backside will you. Or report me for libel - and while you're at it, can you report 90% of the posters on the BBC rugby forum, and pretty much every other rugby forum you can care to look at (and i've looked at a few) for libel too?

by Soul Requiem Wed 22 Jan 2020, 2:28 pm

Khouli Khan wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Same questions still Khan.

You seem not to be able to rationalise this topic. Calling for ever more severe outcomes outside of what was agreed by everyone. Did Farrell fail to sign your autograph too?

Don't think this avenue is worth pursuing, 7&1/2. Fortunately, there's plenty of good discussion on the thread, and probably more as news keeps coming out.

I'm ignoring the ding-a-ling anyway. But, as more news comes out I will either be wrong or vindicated. If i'm wrong, i'm wrong and i'll admit it, if i'm right - well, we'll see what the response on here is.

So you're just taking a blind punt hoping you're right?

Sure - my opinion is based on a hunch and I never said otherwise. So what - that's not allowed? I don't have to explain it, and I don't have to be right. But, I sure as hell haven't been proved wrong yet either. Some people are a bit too far up their own jacksies here I reckon.

When it comes to legal issues you do yes otherwise you're teetering on the edge of libel.

Get from up your own backside will you. Or report me for libel - and while you're at it, can you report 90% of the posters on the BBC rugby forum, and pretty much every other rugby forum you can care to look at (and i've looked at a few) for libel too?

Just stating the way it is, if you can't back up your opinions that's on you.

by Khouli Khan Wed 22 Jan 2020, 2:31 pm

Soul Requiem wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
Rugby Fan wrote:
No 7&1/2 wrote:Same questions still Khan.

You seem not to be able to rationalise this topic. Calling for ever more severe outcomes outside of what was agreed by everyone. Did Farrell fail to sign your autograph too?

Don't think this avenue is worth pursuing, 7&1/2. Fortunately, there's plenty of good discussion on the thread, and probably more as news keeps coming out.

I'm ignoring the ding-a-ling anyway. But, as more news comes out I will either be wrong or vindicated. If i'm wrong, i'm wrong and i'll admit it, if i'm right - well, we'll see what the response on here is.

So you're just taking a blind punt hoping you're right?

Sure - my opinion is based on a hunch and I never said otherwise. So what - that's not allowed? I don't have to explain it, and I don't have to be right. But, I sure as hell haven't been proved wrong yet either. Some people are a bit too far up their own jacksies here I reckon.

When it comes to legal issues you do yes otherwise you're teetering on the edge of libel.

Get from up your own backside will you. Or report me for libel - and while you're at it, can you report 90% of the posters on the BBC rugby forum, and pretty much every other rugby forum you can care to look at (and i've looked at a few) for libel too?

Just stating the way it is, if you can't back up your opinions that's on you.

I don't have to back up an opinion, and nor does anybody else, in order to satisfy the pathetic superiority complexes of a small number of forum members.

Libel my hole - you'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Mind you, you appear to be in some rather cliquey company, which amuses me enough to perpetuate this....

by TightHEAD Wed 22 Jan 2020, 2:36 pm

Well said Khan.

by Soul Requiem Wed 22 Jan 2020, 2:36 pm

Khouli Khan wrote:
I don't have to back up an opinion, and nor does anybody else, in order to satisfy the pathetic superiority complexes of a small number of forum members.

Libel my hole - you'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Mind you, you appear to be in some rather cliquey company, which amuses me enough to perpetuate this....

Someone getting a bit tetchy?

Backing up an opinion on a forum seems a pretty basic concept to me.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 22 Jan 2020, 3:11 pm

TightHEAD wrote:Need to take your own advice SR!

What a plonker.

Same response as the one I gave to someone who called you names on another thread. Keep your personal opinion of posters to yourself. Attack the post by all means, not the poster.

Note: this applies to a number of people on this thread. Either wind your necks in a bit or find a gentle warning becoming an official one.

by BamBam Wed 22 Jan 2020, 3:14 pm

Neil Golding has put out a statement saying that Saracens are not preventing the report being released in full

https://www.saracens.com/a-message-to-our-fans/

Saracens website wrote:With regards to the publication of the disciplinary panel’s full report, I am surprised by the suggestion that Saracens are objecting to the publication of the report. Since my appointment on 9 January, I have spent considerable time in discussions with PRL and nobody has asked me what my position is on the matter. To confirm, we are keen for the report to be published in full and I made PRL aware of this earlier today. It will provide much needed context and clarity.

by TightHEAD Wed 22 Jan 2020, 3:15 pm

attack the post by all means, not the poster.

Well that sounds like a splendid idea. But I'm 100% sure I've been in trouble for doing that too!

Rolling Eyes

by Khouli Khan Wed 22 Jan 2020, 3:22 pm

Soul Requiem wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:
I don't have to back up an opinion, and nor does anybody else, in order to satisfy the pathetic superiority complexes of a small number of forum members.

Libel my hole - you'd be funny if it wasn't so tragic. Mind you, you appear to be in some rather cliquey company, which amuses me enough to perpetuate this....

Backing up an opinion on a forum seems a pretty basic concept to me.

That's your opinion. I don't really want to back up my opinion though, as someone with nothing better to do would likely accuse me of verging on libel.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed 22 Jan 2020, 3:23 pm

I've seen most of the initial reactions to the Saracens news from major podcasts and press.

There are some who feel Saracens' success was not just down to money. Obviously, Brendan Venter and other Saracens alumni, but also some journalists, and pundits like James Haskell. Haskell's opinion is based on seeing how other clubs have squandered financial advantage through poor management.

Then there are those, who might accept that Saracens were only trying to look after their own players in impossible circumstances, but broke the agreed rules, and it obviously helped them perform. Most ex-players seem to fall in this camp (Hamilton, Flatman, Brian Moore)

Some are less forgiving. Who knows where the majority opinion lies, as not everyone is on the record. Still, I've seen opinions that all Saracens players should be held culpable, as only an wilfully blind idiot would think hey could have been under the cap with that squad.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 22 Jan 2020, 3:23 pm

BamBam wrote:Neil Golding has put out a statement saying that Saracens are not preventing the report being released in full

https://www.saracens.com/a-message-to-our-fans/

Saracens website wrote:With regards to the publication of the disciplinary panel’s full report, I am surprised by the suggestion that Saracens are objecting to the publication of the report. Since my appointment on 9 January, I have spent considerable time in discussions with PRL and nobody has asked me what my position is on the matter. To confirm, we are keen for the report to be published in full and I made PRL aware of this earlier today. It will provide much needed context and clarity.

Bless his little cotton socks.

by Khouli Khan Wed 22 Jan 2020, 3:25 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:

I've seen opinions that all Saracens players should be held culpable, as only an wilfully blind idiot would think hey could have been under the cap with that squad.

You better believe they knew what was going on - you can't seriously expect a sensible person to believe that each Saracens player signed up to a massive salary and assumed everyone else in the game was getting paid the same....

by No 7&1/2 Wed 22 Jan 2020, 3:26 pm

Ie can't back up their opinion.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed 22 Jan 2020, 3:37 pm

Khouli Khan wrote:You better believe they knew what was going on - you can't seriously expect a sensible person to believe that each Saracens player signed up to a massive salary and assumed everyone else in the game was getting paid the same....

A number of ex-players have said they never knew what anyone else was being paid, and they wouldn't have seen it as their personal priority to find out.

I'd like to hold Saracens players to account for not realiizing how their squad must have looked too expensive. Then again, the PRL had a salary cap manager, so it's not unreasonable to think this man should have had more information than anyone else.

by Soul Requiem Wed 22 Jan 2020, 3:41 pm

Rugby Fan wrote:
Khouli Khan wrote:You better believe they knew what was going on - you can't seriously expect a sensible person to believe that each Saracens player signed up to a massive salary and assumed everyone else in the game was getting paid the same....

A number of ex-players have said they never knew what anyone else was being paid, and they wouldn't have seen it as their personal priority to find out.

I'd like to hold Saracens players to account for not realiizing how their squad must have looked too expensive. Then again, the PRL had a salary cap manager, so it's not unreasonable to think this man should have had more information than anyone else.

I don't know what my colleagues get paid so why would a rugby player, I don't suppose until recently that the likes of Farrell and Itoje gave it much thought.

by BamBam Wed 22 Jan 2020, 4:09 pm

LondonTiger wrote:
BamBam wrote:Neil Golding has put out a statement saying that Saracens are not preventing the report being released in full

https://www.saracens.com/a-message-to-our-fans/

Saracens website wrote:With regards to the publication of the disciplinary panel’s full report, I am surprised by the suggestion that Saracens are objecting to the publication of the report. Since my appointment on 9 January, I have spent considerable time in discussions with PRL and nobody has asked me what my position is on the matter. To confirm, we are keen for the report to be published in full and I made PRL aware of this earlier today. It will provide much needed context and clarity.

Bless his little cotton socks.

Now PRL has said they'll release the report

Wage cap - Updated with news on Saracens Punishment - Page 19 1347041234

by king_carlos Wed 22 Jan 2020, 4:58 pm

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51209973

More clarity is needed to stop the speculation. Hopefully this will offered some more clarity to how big the overspend was and whether it was the co-investments or more than that.

If Sarries continue to refuse access to their books for this season (there are rumours of an enormous overspend for the current season) then the speculation will remain though.

by **LondonTiger** Wed 22 Jan 2020, 5:09 pm

We agreed with PRL on relegation in the hope that we could draw a line under the mistakes made by Saracens with respect to compliance with the regulations and concentrate on putting new robust procedures in place

Hmm.

by quinsforever Wed 22 Jan 2020, 11:35 pm

Thought this would be the case. extends careers for their international players. yet still available for England and Lions. almost a no-brainer from the player's perspective.

"Saracens are confident of keeping hold of their frontline England stars despite their forthcoming relegation from the Premiership after holding crisis talks with Eddie Jones and Warren Gatland.

Both England head coach Jones and British and Irish Lions boss Gatland have told Saracens that they will continue select their proven performers such as Owen Farrell, Maro Itoje and the Vunipola brothers even though the club will be playing in the Championship next season following their punishment for breaching the salary cap.

“I think the international players had a very clear view on what they wanted to do, all of them,” Mark McCall, the Saracens director of rugby, said. “Luckily enough that coincided with what we wanted as well. I think Eddie is on the whole happy to select players who are established, Warren Gatland the same.”

by **Rugby Fan** Thu 23 Jan 2020, 4:25 am

If the report leak is accurate, then Brendan Venter is right that the cap breach was not as severe as some rumours suggested. Still a breach, though.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-union/2020/01/22/saracens-confident-keeping-hold-england-stars-talks-eddie-jones/

The extent of Saracens’ abuse of Premiership Rugby’s salary cap was laid bare on Wednesday night as details of Lord Dyson’s report were leaked.

In November, English and European champions were hit with a 35-point deduction and a £5.36million fine for breaches of the league’s £7m salary cap over a period of three seasons. Saracens have since accepted a further punishment of relegation to the Championship after refusing to open their books for a forensic audit.

However, details of the breaches have remain shrouded in secrecy with only an edited summary released to the public. On Wednesday, Premiership Rugby had agreed to release the report after new Saracens chairman Neil Golding called for its publication, but were usurped after details of the 103-page document were reported by Sky News. Premiership Rugby intended to release a redacted report later this week.

According to the report, Saracens’ broke the cap in three successive seasons: by more than £1.1m in 2016-17, by nearly £100,000 in 2017-18 and by £906,000 in 2018-19. During that period Saracens won two Premiership and two Champions Cup titles.

The overpayments centre on payments totalling £1.3m made by former chairman Nigel Wray into joint property ventures with several leading players. According to Sky News, these included:

1. A payment of £250,000 into Maro Itoje’s company. It is alleged that the England lock received three lump sum payments of £30,000, £30,000 and £35,000 for hospitality work for which there was no evidence that he attended. The report states that Wray also overpaid for shares in Itoje’s image rights company
2. A £450,000 investment into Vuniprop, a company majority-owned by Billy and Mako Vunipola. A house bought by Vuniprop was part funded by a 33% interest free loan by Wray
3. A breach of £319,600.76 for a £1.4m property bought by former player Chris Ashton

There is no suggestion that any of the players were aware of any wrongdoing. The Sport Resolutions disciplinary panel, led by Lord Dyson, also accepted that the breaches were “not deliberate” but they were “reckless”. It recommended that the club should not be relegated and instead impose the points deduction and fine.

Wray’s defence was the property co-investment payments did not amount to benefits in kind as the equity could have risen or fallen. Telegraph Sport understands that the club were being billed for legal advice costing £3,000 an hour that buoyed Wray’s confidence until they conceded they were unlikely to win a challenge.

by Sponsored content