Latest news:
New Page 1

Whatever your views on Saracens, whether a Sarries fan or not, leave them here.

To leave a message on this board you must register. To register click HERE, it takes only a minute.
Non-rugby posts are welcome, but please prefix your subject header with "OT" or "Off Topic".


Thought for the Day:
SARACENS TOGETHER!

Latest: GLOUCESTER RUGBY 12:21 SARACENS
Next: RACING 92 v SARACENS
Sun 17th Nov La Defense Arena 16.15 (GMT) HC

Audio: Click the link below. If it ain' there, it ain't on!
Upcoming TV: Sun 17th Nov Racing 92 v Saracens HC BT Sport 16.00 GMT

BBC Online Rugby Union Commentaries

The Fish | Rugby Union News | Fez Boys | Saracens Fixtures | The SSA | Rugby on TV


Isn't the issue this simple?
Discussion started by Eric Browett , 09 November, 2019 11:57
Isn't the issue this simple?
Eric Browett 09 November, 2019 11:57
I've been following press reports and the threads on this board. It might be I'm a bit dense but doesn't the whole, miserable mess come down to one basic question?

IF, over the past 3 seasons, there was FULL disclosure to Andrew Hodges, the Premiership Rugby salary cap manager, of the business partnerships with between Wray and the players surely it is the PRL to blame, not Saracens.

IF Saracens have misled the PRL and not disclosed all dealings with players Saracens are to blame and should rightly have the book thrown at them.

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
Quinten Poulsen 09 November, 2019 12:15
It's even more simple that that. Saracens have been deemed to have exceeded the cap and not disclosed everything required for each of the previous 3 seasons.

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
Eric Browett 09 November, 2019 12:20
QP - I understand there was a small fine for something not disclosed that was unrelated to the co investments. I'm asking if there was full disclosure on the business partnerships as everyone seems to agree this is the crux of the matter.

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
HonkyTonk 09 November, 2019 12:33
There has also been (Unconfirmed) reports of payments made to off shore accounts re image rights

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
BACK TO BLACK 09 November, 2019 12:35
Simple this is not. The lawyers are already circling with fees on their mind no doubt

Legal madness



My wife and I are on the verge of splitting up because of my obsession with rugby.
I've decided to give it one last try......

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
cwrich 09 November, 2019 12:44
Not the only ones going round in circles winking smiley

God I hope it doesnít come to that .... hopefully Nigel will see that cannot end well

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
Duncan96 09 November, 2019 12:50
Quote:
Eric Browett
I've been following press reports and the threads on this board. It might be I'm a bit dense but doesn't the whole, miserable mess come down to one basic question?
IF, over the past 3 seasons, there was FULL disclosure to Andrew Hodges, the Premiership Rugby salary cap manager, of the business partnerships with between Wray and the players surely it is the PRL to blame, not Saracens.

IF Saracens have misled the PRL and not disclosed all dealings with players Saracens
are to blame and should rightly have the book thrown at them.

I have exactly the same issue which I expressed on another thread. Unfortunately I donít think we will ever have the answer to this conundrum which is a shame as far as moving on is concerned.

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
Marlow Nick 09 November, 2019 13:16
Quote:
Eric Browett
I've been following press reports and the threads on this board. It might be I'm a bit dense but doesn't the whole, miserable mess come down to one basic question?
IF, over the past 3 seasons, there was FULL disclosure to Andrew Hodges, the Premiership Rugby salary cap manager, of the business partnerships with between Wray and the players surely it is the PRL to blame, not Saracens.

IF Saracens have misled the PRL and not disclosed all dealings with players Saracens are to blame and should rightly have the book thrown at them.

Eric, you are correct. That's the question the eminent panel looked at and they decided so now there is no more if. Saracens did mislead PRL and therefore they are having the book thrown at them

Comments by several posters on this board suggest there is still a question to be answered or more evidence to be reviewed. There isn't. The review Nigel says he wants is not a review of new evidence it's a review of whether the 3 eminently qualified and impartial panel members were actually incompetent or biased. He's within his rights to ask for the review but it is really clutching at straws.

Of course we would all like to see more documentation to satisfy our own curiosity but that's all it is -personal interest. We are not the panel. We will not see the documents. They have and they have given the verdict.

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
Quinten Poulsen 09 November, 2019 13:16
I don't know why it matters which player benefits were disclosed or not disclosed.

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
Eric Browett 09 November, 2019 13:47
QP - read what I said again. Did PRL know all about co investments from Saracens? Had we been up front about it in cap disclosure for the last 3 years? If so, why did they not tell us to stop if they deem it not within the cap regulations?

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
Eric Browett 09 November, 2019 13:59
Marlow Nick - I accept your points. I just don't think it's transparent enough.

I think PRL as well as Saracens have some serious questions to answer. I don't know if you've read the Guardian article which said the RFU didn't consider the cap regulations tight or clear enough when they looked at them but they just let the PRL get on with it. They're probably regretting that decision now.

To be clear, I think the appeal will probably fail. I don't like the fact that Wray has said he's glad the panel found we didn't break the cap 'deliberately' but didn't admit the panel said we were 'reckless' (according to BT sport, leaked from PRL no doubt). I also don't feel comfortable that co investment only seems to have been offered to our top earners as far as we're aware.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/11/2019 14:07 by Eric Browett.

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
Marlow Nick 09 November, 2019 14:31
Eric,
I'm sure you're right that following this incident there will be improvements to be made in the rules and the policing of the rules. PRL do not come out if this covered in glory but that will not prevent Saracens from being punished. Two wrongs do not make a right and whatever PRL/SCM failings Saracens have clearly cheated. Everyone knew Nigel Wray has been breaking the spirit of the rules for the best part of a decade. He's finally been caught out breaking the actual rules and this is why I believe the club chairmen want to push hard - not just for this specific incident but for all the other rule bending they know happened they just couldn't prove.

I have read the Guardian article and I know I'm biased but it looks like it was written by Saracens PR team. There are lots of factual errors and several strangely biased statements. Equally the Mail articles are vitriolic nonsense. I'm sure many interpret my comments on these boards as spitefully demanding revenge for my club. That's not my intent. I want rugby to grow in England and I believe Saracens' ridiculously strong squad are damaging the enjoyment for all spectators and making it harder for all clubs to break even. The sad thing is that with Saracens' excellent academy and coaches they would be comfortably in the top 6 and would have won several trophies without having to cheat.

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
wolfgangvonb77 09 November, 2019 20:57
Why can't the English teams compete in Europe, make the premiership mediore as wel lol.

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
MarchingIn 10 November, 2019 02:09
Quote:
Eric Browett
QP - I understand there was a small fine for something not disclosed that was unrelated to the co investments. I'm asking if there was full disclosure on the business partnerships as everyone seems to agree this is the crux of the matter.

Perhaps image rights stuff or something similar was not disclosed in error, but the co-investment stuff was not disclosed at all because NW sees it as "not income"..?

It could be that "co-investment" was disclosed, but the Prem bosses quietly changed their minds on whether it was acceptable in light of the public & private response to the Daily Mail reporting?

I get the distinct impression "co-investment" means NW puts money in and doesn't get an equal long term £ for £ return on it compared to the player - if that is the case, there is no escape from the fact it is an attempt to renumerate the player beyond their salary - then let's say, they didn't necessarily get a return this year, and it perhaps therefore wasn't added to the calculation as 'benefit in kind', although a business relationship was disclosed - very much not right.

Until & unless full detailed facts emerge, we have no idea and must trust the judgement of the very experienced and eminently qualified review panel.

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
AP 10 November, 2019 09:35
Quote:
MarchingIn
Quote:
Eric Browett
QP - I understand there was a small fine for something not disclosed that was unrelated to the co investments. I'm asking if there was full disclosure on the business partnerships as everyone seems to agree this is the crux of the matter.

Perhaps image rights stuff or something similar was not disclosed in error, but the co-investment stuff was not disclosed at all because NW sees it as "not income"..?

It could be that "co-investment" was disclosed, but the Prem bosses quietly changed their minds on whether it was acceptable in light of the public & private response to the Daily Mail reporting?

I get the distinct impression "co-investment" means NW puts money in and doesn't get an equal long term £ for £ return on it compared to the player - if that is the case, there is no escape from the fact it is an attempt to renumerate the player beyond their salary - then let's say, they didn't necessarily get a return this year, and it perhaps therefore wasn't added to the calculation as 'benefit in kind', although a business relationship was disclosed - very much not right.

Until & unless full detailed facts emerge, we have no idea and must trust the judgement of the very experienced and eminently qualified review panel.

There seems to be an awful lot that isn't clear, and won't be unless more facts come into the public domain.

But what's being said in various places suggests that (apart from a couple of small payments for off field engagements which weren't treated properly) everything was all right except for the co-investments.

That is what annoys me as a STH because the arrangements are obviously potentially within the scope of the Salary Cap Regulations and so require the approval of the Premiership Salary Cap Manager before they can be excluded. You can only get that with disclosure which must be full and accurate. It may be that the PSCM didn't really understand what they has looking at or that the guidance they had from Premiership Rugby wasn't clear, but that's not a good enough excuse - Sarries had to make sure it was above board and agreed in a watertight way. It's no good saying Premiership Rugby bear some responsibility (though they don't come out of this well as they've presided over damage to their product).

That doesn't mean that the Tribunal's decision can't be challenged. It may be that they can be argued to have misdirected themselves on what amount is the salary and / or have calculated the penalty wrongly. If these are genuine co-investment arrangements made on equal terms, is the amount of "salary" the gross capital NW has put in or the benefit the player derives (eg half the net rent from the property)? The fine suggests an underlying average amount of about £550,000 for each of three seasons.



Successful hills are here to stay
Everything must be this way
Gentle streets where people play
Welcome to the Soft Parade

Re: Isn't the issue this simple?
#wolfpack 11 November, 2019 18:20
I agree with the OP.

And the only way to knock this on the head, and to know whether

(1) we all need to shut up, Nigel needs to show a bit of contrition and we have to take our medicine; or
(2) whether some loudmouth chairmen and players at other whiter than white never done anything naughty once clubs need to pipe down

is for PRL to release the report, judgement and ALL correspondence between Saracens and the Salary Cap manager for the period in question.

Because otherwise it'll just rumble on forever and no one will know what actually happened. All parties will continue to feel aggrieved.

The response from some very boring posters on here will be: "oH WE NO wHaT HaPEnEd. YOu GOt cAuHt cheATinG."

But no one knows anything. How much did we overspend? What was it we failed to declare? Was it these co-investments or not (conflicting reports)? Is it VunProp Ltd or Wolfpack Lager and Tiki Tonga Coffee? What did the salary cap manager know? Why, if Nigel Wray was cheating, would he set up a company called Wiggy9? - hardly the work of a criminal genius. Why did Wray imply there are others in the league doing the same thing (a hint that other ex players seem to confirm - e.g. see Phil Vickery's recent comments)?

No one knows any of this stuff. PRL should tell us to avert further bad blood developing.


This Thread has been closed
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net