Welcome to The Saracens. Our message board is primarily a place for Saracens fans to discuss our club. We welcome posters from other clubs as long as their posts are respectful and not repetitive and our guidelines are followed.
To leave a message on this board you must register. To register click HERE,
Non-rugby posts are welcome, but please prefix your subject header with "OT" or "Off Topic".
Latest: SARACENS 40:22 EXETER CHIEFS BBC Online Rugby Union Commentaries
The Fish |
Rugby Union News | Fez Cast
| Saracens Fixtures
| The SSA
Thought for the Day:
A GOOD WAY TO TAKE A BREAK
Next: SARACENS v LEINSTER Fri 23rd Feb 19.30 StoneX
Audio: Click the link below. If it ain' there, it ain't on!
Quote:TAD1971
Apologies for the new thread but I feel this is worthy of a separate discussion (sorry if this sounds arrogant!). I’m not a first time poster, I used to post here as sarriecen but quit the message board and made my account unrecoverable when the board was at its most toxic.
The merits of the Itoje MBN and image rights punishments have been discussed to death on other threads and people can draw their own conclusions but what hasn’t been discussed as much is the Ashton one, and in particular how it relates to the other four property ventures.
Correct me if I am wrong, but the other four property transactions were set up in exactly the same way as Ashton’s, and the only difference between them is Ashton lived in his and the other four were buy to let, but that does not have an effect on the material nature of the transaction.
Where this confuses me is that the Salary cap manager fully knew about the Ashton transaction and agreed that the only salary cap impact was 3% annual interest on the interest free director loan. This raises two important questions:
1. Why did the interpretation of the loan suddenly change so that it was considered salary once he left the club and couldn’t repay it? Surely it’s either salary at the beginning when it was first made or not at all? Why did the interpretation suddenly change and only change in 17/18?
However, this is not so big a deal as it only led to a £98k or so overspend in 17/18 as we were a decent amount under the cap that year without it, so the below is the more significant one.
2. Why was the treatment of the other four investment property treated differently from Ashton’s? If it is the case that the only salary cap impact is 3% of the £1m or so overspend, just like it was with Ashton before he left? I can fully see why Nigel Wray said that he thought they were fine given the exact same thing had previously been approved by the SCM. I’m unsure if the £30k (3%) was included in the cap but let’s be honest it’s immaterial.
I was previously of the opinion that we have done wrong and accept our punishment but my feelings have now changed. The Itoje MBN one is utterly farcical as even basic investigation would show he has attended many events for MBN and many other sportsmen, sarries and not, have been paid by MBN for the same thing. The Itoje image rights one is one for lawyers and accountants, I don’t feel qualified enough to know what to think on that. And the property ones are a joke, unless I am missing something.
All the information from this is from the very good Guardian article that breaks down each of the individual infringements.
I am also happy to stand corrected if more comes out and we committed further sins as of course none of this explains our second punishment of relegation and what has happened this season
Quote:Nick4219
And RE the Ashton property finding, the SCM and the Panel concluded that NW only provided the interest free loans for the players to purchase the property because of the fact at the time of purchase they were Saracens players. Had they not been Saracens players then he would not have given them the loans, therefore, a direct benefit to them of playing for Saracens was these loans which under the regulation counted as salary.
Quote:TAD1971
I didn’t write this post about Itoje though. It’s about the property deals.
Tbh I shouldn’t have mentioned anything else, my mistake
Quote:Nick4219Quote:TAD1971
I didn’t write this post about Itoje though. It’s about the property deals.
Tbh I shouldn’t have mentioned anything else, my mistake
You brought up the MBN payments as being farcical.
Quote:Speedy-New
I suspect because at the time that home was Ashton's family home whereas the others were Buy to lets and therefore investments
Quote:TAD1971Quote:Nick4219
And RE the Ashton property finding, the SCM and the Panel concluded that NW only provided the interest free loans for the players to purchase the property because of the fact at the time of purchase they were Saracens players. Had they not been Saracens players then he would not have given them the loans, therefore, a direct benefit to them of playing for Saracens was these loans which under the regulation counted as salary.
Still doesn’t explain why the SCM was happy with the treatment of the Ashton loan as long as 3% market rate interest was within the cap but the same treatment could not be applied to the other loans
Quote:TAD1971Quote:Speedy-New
I suspect because at the time that home was Ashton's family home whereas the others were Buy to lets and therefore investments
I cannot see any mention in the report (admittedly I have just searched for key words) that this is the reason and I see no reason why this should differentiate them when the effect is the same
Quote:TAD1971Quote:Speedy-New
I suspect because at the time that home was Ashton's family home whereas the others were Buy to lets and therefore investments
I cannot see any mention in the report (admittedly I have just searched for key words) that this is the reason and I see no reason why this should differentiate them when the effect is the same
Quote:EXDJQuote:TAD1971Quote:Speedy-New
I suspect because at the time that home was Ashton's family home whereas the others were Buy to lets and therefore investments
I cannot see any mention in the report (admittedly I have just searched for key words) that this is the reason and I see no reason why this should differentiate them when the effect is the same
The report treats them differently. The loan to the Connected Party company is dealt with under para 1(d) (Sarries agree - see para 160 of the report) which counts any loan which is not repayable during the year as Salary. The loan to Ashton is dealt with under para 1(g) (see para 229 of the report) which treats any accommodation cost as Salary. The Salary Cap Manager has decided to amortise it over a certain period and thus assign a nominal amount to go into the cap calculation. Just as presumably if Wray bought a house and let a player live in it rent -free, you would be looking to calculate the annual value of that benefit. I suspect that there is precedent for how accommodation costs should be treated, even if not spelled out in the cap regs.
The SCM could in theory have chosen to deal with the Ashton loan under para 1(d) and count the full amount towards the cap. Producing a harsher result. He did not have the option of treating the investment properties as accommodation, because they weren’t.
Does that help?
Quote:Primavesi2
As a general point, treating the full notional of a loan as salary is clearly absurd as that is obviously not the size of the economic benefit. The economic benefit is the difference between the rate he would have had to pay on the high street and the rate he actually paid.
Quote:TAD1971
I’m guessing Wray made the same mistake as I did when thinking the two cases were the same
Quote:Primavesi2
As a general point, treating the full notional of a loan as salary is clearly absurd as that is obviously not the size of the economic benefit. The economic benefit is the difference between the rate he would have had to pay on the high street and the rate he actually paid.
Quote:Sarriebone
One thing I haven't really seen mentioned is the fact that remaining money owed to Wray+ other investor was paid off by his new club, presumably that would be Sale?
Quote:Chris1850Quote:Sarriebone
One thing I haven't really seen mentioned is the fact that remaining money owed to Wray+ other investor was paid off by his new club, presumably that would be Sale?
Yes. I spotted that as well. I assume that Ashton is one of Sales marquee players though so any payment made would be outside the SC?
Quote:I know it's from Wray's statement so may hold no value but:StatesmanQuote:Chris1850Quote:Sarriebone
One thing I haven't really seen mentioned is the fact that remaining money owed to Wray+ other investor was paid off by his new club, presumably that would be Sale?
Yes. I spotted that as well. I assume that Ashton is one of Sales marquee players though so any payment made would be outside the SC?
I assumed Toulon?
Quote:SarrieboneQuote:I know it's from Wray's statement so may hold no value but:StatesmanQuote:Chris1850Quote:Sarriebone
One thing I haven't really seen mentioned is the fact that remaining money owed to Wray+ other investor was paid off by his new club, presumably that would be Sale?
Yes. I spotted that as well. I assume that Ashton is one of Sales marquee players though so any payment made would be outside the SC?
I assumed Toulon?
Having joined another club, the former player wished to purchase the directors’ stakes in the property through equal monthly instalments over an 18-month period. After initially complying with the payment plan, he was unable to meet the instalments due to personal circumstances. We wanted to help him and his family so agreed to a short delay in the repayments. Eight months later the former player moved to a new club where the owner of that club paid off the full outstanding amount to us directly.
Quote:StatesmanQuote:SarrieboneQuote:I know it's from Wray's statement so may hold no value but:StatesmanQuote:Chris1850Quote:Sarriebone
One thing I haven't really seen mentioned is the fact that remaining money owed to Wray+ other investor was paid off by his new club, presumably that would be Sale?
Yes. I spotted that as well. I assume that Ashton is one of Sales marquee players though so any payment made would be outside the SC?
I assumed Toulon?
Having joined another club, the former player wished to purchase the directors’ stakes in the property through equal monthly instalments over an 18-month period. After initially complying with the payment plan, he was unable to meet the instalments due to personal circumstances. We wanted to help him and his family so agreed to a short delay in the repayments. Eight months later the former player moved to a new club where the owner of that club paid off the full outstanding amount to us directly.
Sorry - you're right - the dates don't tie in with Toulon - must be Sale - let's hope he's their 2nd Excluded Player!
Quote:Marlow NickQuote:or ( and I realise the concept may be a bit too radical for some) but maybe just maybe Sale declared the payment to the SCM and it was counted in their salary total.StatesmanQuote:SarrieboneQuote:I know it's from Wray's statement so may hold no value but:StatesmanQuote:Chris1850Quote:Sarriebone
One thing I haven't really seen mentioned is the fact that remaining money owed to Wray+ other investor was paid off by his new club, presumably that would be Sale?
Yes. I spotted that as well. I assume that Ashton is one of Sales marquee players though so any payment made would be outside the SC?
I assumed Toulon?
Having joined another club, the former player wished to purchase the directors’ stakes in the property through equal monthly instalments over an 18-month period. After initially complying with the payment plan, he was unable to meet the instalments due to personal circumstances. We wanted to help him and his family so agreed to a short delay in the repayments. Eight months later the former player moved to a new club where the owner of that club paid off the full outstanding amount to us directly.
Sorry - you're right - the dates don't tie in with Toulon - must be Sale - let's hope he's their 2nd Excluded Player!