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:Marlow NickQuote:TonyTaff
Somewhere above in the thread, someone opined that an interpretation 'wouldn't stand up in court'.
That may be the case; PRL have explicitly sought to prevent a member club going to court. I suspect this is because they suspect they would be driven to insolvency defending in court their incompetent auditor and rules, when facing Lansdown, Craig, Wray etc.
For the same reason, the reasons for the decision are going to remain secret!
I'm not sure I follow your logic. How has this been blocked from court?
Of course PRL don't want to be bankrupted by expensive legal proceedings (rumour has it that's why they gave in when Nigel was caught bending the rules 5 years ago) but what makes you think Nigel was "blocked" as opposed to him realising that in this civil case he didn't have a leg to stand on when measured by the rules he signed up to follow?
My understanding is that there was a review process which Nigel chose not to follow plus of course the courts are open for a civil lawsuit which again Nigel chose not to follow. If Nigel was so sure that Saracens were the innocent victims of PRL incompetence then why didn't he take it to court?
Quote:tpr's headmistress
Exactly my thoughts TT - one of theirs stuffed up and they don't want to admit it. That doesn't exonerate any of ours of doing wrong but potentially answers how it took too long to be ruled as wrong.
Quote:Marlow Nick
Sounds like Edwards isn't so sure that Liam Williams' departure won't balance the books
Quote:Marlow NickQuote:Duncan96
You simply require loans to be reported on until they are written off or repaid whether or not the player is still with you. If, at any point the loan is repaid/written off in a way which transfers value to the player it is treated as salary.
The cap rules require that all loans are repaid within the same season. I know several people keep trying to claim that these investments are a key part of helping players prepare for life after rugby. They are not. They are valuable incentives to retain players and are not allowed by the cap rules. If you want to support players then propose a scheme that benefits the lower paid players not just the superstars who have plenty of money anyway.
Quote:Roger G
I think some people are confused by the terminology. The three terms in question, with their dictionary definitions, are:
Salary - a fixed regular payment, typically paid on a monthly basis but often expressed as an annual sum, made by an employer to an employee, especially a professional or white-collar worker.
Loan - a thing that is borrowed, especially a sum of money that is expected to be paid back with interest.
Investment - the action or process of investing money for profit.
Quote:PRL salary cap rules
"Salary" means …
... any salary, wage, fee, remuneration, compensation, match fee, per diem, royalty, gratuity, profit, perquisite, reward, emolument, earnings, incentive, retainer, loyalty payment, preferred payment or any other sum
… any loan pursuant to which the Player or any Connected Party of the Player is not obliged to repay the full sum advance in the Salary Cap Year in which the loan is made
… any other financial remuneration (of a form not described above)
… any payment or benefit in kind which the Player would not have received if it were not for his involvement with a Club
... any payment or benefit in kind to an Ex-Player
Quote:Marlow Nick
If these investments Nigel has made are only for Saracens players then it falls under " benefit in kind which the Player would not have received if it were not for his involvement with a Club" and therefore is in-scope for "salary".
Quote:Are you seriously saying he would still be an ambassador for Wasps and have a hospita;ity suite at the Ricoh even if he hadn't played for the club?Poking With Sticks
I don't think you could argue with certainty that Goode wouldn't have got that job but for his involvement with Wasps. He's also eminently qualified for the role by dint of a long career as a player.
Quote:Curmujjen
Quite.
In order to truly understand this situation you would need to know where the money came from for these co-investments. Did the players invest their own money in return for a proportionate share of the ownership of the business and the profits/losses? Was the money loaned to them by Nigel Wray and, if so, on what terms? Or did Nigel simply gift them the money?
And the answer is...I haven't a Scooby Doo, and nor does any of us.
Quote:See this again is an issue with the regs, coaching? Sure, is turning up to matches and eating some complimentary food and having a chat to a few fans really a service? DebatableEXDJ
Meanwhile on Goodey, para 1(s) of schedule 1 of the cap rules applies:
“ any payment or benefit in kind to an Ex-Player (other than the supply to each Ex- Player of a maximum of four match tickets per Club match) which is not a bona fide payment for the provision of off-field services by the Ex-Player to the Club, such services being provided by the Ex-Player to the Club subsequent to the termination or expiry of his playing contract with the Club;”
... will be treated as salary.
I assume hosting the Andy Goode suite is a bona fide service.
Quote:Sarriebone
Are you seriously saying he would still be an ambassador for Wasps and have a hospita;ity suite at the Ricoh even if he hadn't played for the club?
Quote:Sarriebone
Mark Mccall has his say [www.rugbypass.com]
Quote:ukmsQuote:Sarriebone
Mark Mccall has his say [www.rugbypass.com]
Perhaps not just BBC journalistic speculation that some believe ..... offloading players looks like a real possibility from the way he speaks.
I don't think anyone called it BBC journalistic speculation, ukms - more like journalistic hyperbole and gross exaggeration. I for one thought there was a possibility that we may have to lose a few players - either a couple of mega-buck stars, 3-4 prem standard squad lads, or a half-dozen youngsters. It appears that "pensioning off" a few older players is another possibility. Whichever option is exercised, it doesn't even come close to "dismantling the squad".
Does that not make you think it’s a bigger breach than just the odd Co-investment with a couple of players ?
It's not unreasonable to think that - but there's also the other factor as indicated by the new CEO, namely that of perception . Whereas just announcing salary cuts means taking the clubs word (which nobody will believe) - actually replacing 3-6 middle earners (£150-£250K) players with youngsters on say £50-£70K is a visible remedy which can't be disputed. It doesn't necessarily mean that the breach is anything other than the co-investments.
Once again, none of us can be sure of anything surrounding the issue.
Quote:Duncan96
One interesting point by Mark Evans, Ex CEO of Sarries and Quins who declares himself a Quins fan and who doesn’t hold back in pointing the finger at Saracens, is that he could list 8 clubs who, in his knowledge, broke the salary cap regs. He isn’t talking about going slightly over.
Quote:JL904Quote:ukmsQuote:Sarriebone
Mark Mccall has his say [www.rugbypass.com]
Perhaps not just BBC journalistic speculation that some believe ..... offloading players looks like a real possibility from the way he speaks.
I don't think anyone called it BBC journalistic speculation, ukms - more like journalistic hyperbole and gross exaggeration. I for one thought there was a possibility that we may have to lose a few players - either a couple of mega-buck stars, 3-4 prem standard squad lads, or a half-dozen youngsters. It appears that "pensioning off" a few older players is another possibility. Whichever option is exercised, it doesn't even come close to "dismantling the squad".[/i]
Does that not make you think it’s a bigger breach than just the odd Co-investment with a couple of players ?
[i]It's not unreasonable to think that - but there's also the other factor as indicated by the new CEO, namely that of perception . Whereas just announcing salary cuts means taking the clubs word (which nobody will believe) - actually replacing 3-6 middle earners (£150-£250K) players with youngsters on say £50-£70K is a visible remedy which can't be disputed. It doesn't necessarily mean that the breach is anything other than the co-investments.
Once again, none of us can be sure of anything surrounding the issue.
Quote:Steve_MQuote:Duncan96
One interesting point by Mark Evans, Ex CEO of Sarries and Quins who declares himself a Quins fan and who doesn’t hold back in pointing the finger at Saracens, is that he could list 8 clubs who, in his knowledge, broke the salary cap regs. He isn’t talking about going slightly over.
This is also covered in the regulations; "Whistle Blowing. To assist the Salary Cap Manager in monitoring compliance with these Regulations, individuals (whether players, coaches, administrators, agents or others) are encouraged to approach the Salary Cap Manager with any information relevant to any actual or potential instance of non-compliance with the Regulations by another party. The identity of the individual providing the information will not be disclosed beyond the Salary Cap Manager without such individual’s prior approval".
I would suggest that Mark Evans should either keep quiet on the subject or name and shame with supporting evidence.
Quote:Wayoutwest
Nick, if it is £650k this season because of the investments we truly are in a mess. Where would savings like that come from?
Would that account for Faz's recent fall in form, is he potentially one to go? To save that cash it would really have to be some big names...
Quote:I would suggest that Mark Evans should either keep quiet on the subject or name and shame with supporting evidence.
Quote:Brown BottleQuote:I would suggest that Mark Evans should either keep quiet on the subject or name and shame with supporting evidence.
Bear in mind it's 9 years since Mark Evans was involved with premiership rugby. IIRC he was quite voluble about it at the time. I think he once said there were only 2 teams definitely under the cap - Wasps and Quins.
Quote:Am I more inclined to go for the Ed Griffiths/Mark Evans view that the salary cap regs were not efficiently policed and widely broken back then. Yes I am. Can I prove it to those who believe Saracens are the only club who have ever transgressed? No I can’t.
Quote:Brown BottleQuote:Am I more inclined to go for the Ed Griffiths/Mark Evans view that the salary cap regs were not efficiently policed and widely broken back then. Yes I am. Can I prove it to those who believe Saracens are the only club who have ever transgressed? No I can’t.
I'm not sure anyone believes Saracens are the only club who have ever transgressed.
Quote:Brown BottleQuote:Am I more inclined to go for the Ed Griffiths/Mark Evans view that the salary cap regs were not efficiently policed and widely broken back then. Yes I am. Can I prove it to those who believe Saracens are the only club who have ever transgressed? No I can’t.
I'm not sure anyone believes Saracens are the only club who have ever transgressed.
Quote:James_PQuote:Brown BottleQuote:Am I more inclined to go for the Ed Griffiths/Mark Evans view that the salary cap regs were not efficiently policed and widely broken back then. Yes I am. Can I prove it to those who believe Saracens are the only club who have ever transgressed? No I can’t.
I'm not sure anyone believes Saracens are the only club who have ever transgressed.
Thought it was pretty commonly stated that it was yourselves and Bath 3 or 4 years ago?
Quote:
Exactly. And all I’m saying through the points in my earlier posts is that there are those with insight who say it’s not the case.[/quote
Quote:James_PQuote:Brown BottleQuote:Am I more inclined to go for the Ed Griffiths/Mark Evans view that the salary cap regs were not efficiently policed and widely broken back then. Yes I am. Can I prove it to those who believe Saracens are the only club who have ever transgressed? No I can’t.
I'm not sure anyone believes Saracens are the only club who have ever transgressed.
Thought it was pretty commonly stated that it was yourselves and Bath 3 or 4 years ago?
Quote:Rinkadink
IIRC Leicester never made a clear statement on the matter back in 2015 or whenever it was. Or something different to the others anyway.
Quote:Poking With SticksQuote:Rinkadink
IIRC Leicester never made a clear statement on the matter back in 2015 or whenever it was. Or something different to the others anyway.
Cockers did: “The cap is there for a reason,” Richard Cockerill, the Leicester director of rugby, said. “It is a good thing because it keeps the league competitive. For sides like ourselves, Gloucester and [Northampton] Saints who pay our own bills and have a robust financial structure then we spend what we can afford to spend. That is a good model to be part of."
Link
Quote:RinkadinkQuote:Poking With SticksQuote:Rinkadink
IIRC Leicester never made a clear statement on the matter back in 2015 or whenever it was. Or something different to the others anyway.
Cockers did: “The cap is there for a reason,” Richard Cockerill, the Leicester director of rugby, said. “It is a good thing because it keeps the league competitive. For sides like ourselves, Gloucester and [Northampton] Saints who pay our own bills and have a robust financial structure then we spend what we can afford to spend. That is a good model to be part of."
Link
Nice try but it's 2014, and 3 clubs were fined that year?
Here is one from 2015;
"A large majority of Premiership clubs have since decided this confidentiality does not bind them, with no resultant action being taken against them. Every club save Bath, Leicester and Saracens has, in some public communication or other, denied breaching the salary cap or has confirmed they were not investigated and/or did not reach any settlement."
[www.telegraph.co.uk]