Latest news:
New Page 1

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".


Thought for the Day:
LOCKDOWN!

Latest: SARACENS 23:14 LEICESTER TIGERS
Next: God only knows!

Audio: Click the link below. If it ain' there, it ain't on!
Upcoming TV: tbc

BBC Online Rugby Union Commentaries

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


Goto Page: Previous1234567Next
Current Page: 3 of 7
Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
TonyTaff 04 January, 2020 17:21
Quote:
Marlow Nick
Quote:
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?

Er, all members of PRL were required to sign up to the review process, the scope of which was extremely and deliberately limited. Sarries and Wray were denied their day in court by an agreement to which they were signatories.



£721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication.


(*) As at October 31, 2018.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Steve_M 05 January, 2020 01:26
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.

You write as if Saracens are not members of PRL, why ?

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Sarriebone 06 January, 2020 13:37
Edward Griffiths, the new Saracens chief executive, has told the clubís high-profile squad some players may have to leave or face salary cuts to prove they are operating within the Premiership salary cap this season.

[www.rugbypass.com]

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
gorillapie 06 January, 2020 17:37
BREAKING: 'Saracens squad could be dismantled, says interim chief executive Edward Griffiths' (BBC)
[www.bbc.co.uk]

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Marlow Nick 06 January, 2020 17:54
Sounds like Edwards isn't so sure that Liam Williams' departure won't balance the books

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
BathMatt53 06 January, 2020 17:57
Quote:
Marlow Nick
Sounds like Edwards isn't so sure that Liam Williams' departure won't balance the books

Has he already departed? I read it as meaning this season (ie having to move players on immediately).



[Adoptee 19 / 20: The High ball and counter attack meister, Tom Homer]

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Sans Culottes 06 January, 2020 18:14
[quote Duncan96]Yep, Prefs are legally equity but economically behave more like loans. My interpretation of the SCR's would be that Prefs would not be counted as salary. Which takes me back to a point I have made many times before which is that Connected Party JV's should not be allowed - in the context of a SC they are just too difficult to police. Equity, Loans and Prefs are the very simplest form of Capital Structures and we're struggling to deal with them![/quote]

Difficult to police? We are struggling? Can't agree with you there I'm afraid.

E.g. one suggestion is that wherever there's a JV it could be cleared by an appointed expert as to whether the loan and equity terms are arms length. That's not difficult. Almost any firm of accountants could do that and it would have caught the property companies up front but not, I suspect, thoroughly comendable and to be encouraged ventures like Wolfpack.

Then each year a report could be required on whether shares have been transferred and/or loans waived etc in a way which represents a transfer of value to the player, again signed off by accountants/auditors.

If there is a transfer of value its treated as salary in the year that the shares/loans were issued but if that takes the club over the cap in that prior year the fine and points deduction are applied in the current year. There would be a real incentive to make sure everything is properly cleared that way. After all, the accounts are filed at Companies house as Saracens know only too well![/quote]

Not sure how you deal with loans that are written off only after the player has left / retired.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Duncan96 06 January, 2020 18:26
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.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
ROLLO 06 January, 2020 21:56
So why did Wray tell the rugby world that Sarries were now under the cap ?

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Wilson Pickett 06 January, 2020 22:16
because maybe heís worried the rugby world would think he was a cheating **** if he said they werenít ? Lots of time and money on a terrible legacy and reputation.



*not necessarily my view



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/01/2020 22:18 by Wilson Pickett.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Curmujjen 06 January, 2020 23:07
"The cap rules require that all loans are repaid within the same season."

They require nothing of the kind. What the rules require is that loans not repaid in the same season should be reported.

If the loan is at a preferential rate then the difference between that rate and the market rate would be a benefit to the player. However, if the loan is at the prevailing market rate then the player has gained nothing from it, except convenience.

"if the arrangement is on terms typical of commercial contracts of that type,
it will be less likely to be considered Salary;"

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Curmujjen 06 January, 2020 23:11
"They are valuable incentives to retain players and are not allowed by the cap rules."

How do you explain, then, that one of these co-investment arrangements was with a Marquee player who is exempt from the cap?

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Duncan96 06 January, 2020 23:18
Quote:
Marlow Nick
Quote:
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.

Nick: it would be Groundhog Day to respond to this. Iíve already covered it.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Roger G 07 January, 2020 08:25
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.

Most of the press reports (but not all) have talked about "co-investments", as did Nigel originally, claiming repeatedly that investments were not salary, which stacks up with teh above definitions. Also it's clear to me that there is an identifiable difference between a loan and an investment. The SC rules apparently deal with salary and loans, but I'm not sure if they specifically mention how to deal with investments (I'm sure somebody with less of a life to live than me will tell us). Clearly Sarries have been found to have broken some rule or other so it seems to me that (probably) either there is something about the investments that make them more like loans, or the SCM has deemed that investments on certain terms should be treated as loans. As I've said before, without the details of the judgement, nobody really knows...so people on both sides of the argument pretending to be certain about what's happened, and often why there still is or isn't a problem, seems pointless to me.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Curmujjen 07 January, 2020 08:45
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.

What I do know, however, is that for justice to be done it must be seen to have been done. In this situation nothing is visible therefore justice has not been done.

This is akin to getting into a commercial dispute and then, when it goes to court, your opponent gets to both select and pay the judges, and force the entire proceeding to be top secret.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Wayoutwest 07 January, 2020 09:00
the article on the BBC was written by an ex Daily Mail journalist who has just joined the BBC....

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Marlow Nick 07 January, 2020 11:20
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.

Roger,

You're looking in the wrong dictionary - the Salary Cap has its own definition of "Salary"

Quote:
PRL salary cap rules
"Salary" means Ö
... 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
Ö 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
Ö any other financial remuneration (of a form not described above)
Ö 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

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".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/01/2020 11:22 by Marlow Nick.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Sarriebone 07 January, 2020 11:53
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".

My understanding of it is that this extends to after the player has stopped playing for the club, correct? If so how does this work with, say, Andy Goode being an Ambassador for Wasps? A role he is no doubt being paid for and a role he would not have were it not for his involvement with the club, surely that comes under the remit of the above statement?

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Poking With Sticks 07 January, 2020 12:29
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.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Sarriebone 07 January, 2020 12:41
Quote:
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.
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?

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Duncan96 07 January, 2020 12:44
This weekís Ruck podcast combined with EGís current pronouncements make painful hearing/reading and Iím sure weíd all be grateful if the full picture was published.

One interesting point by Mark Evans, Ex CEO of Sarries and Quins who declares himself a Quins fan and who doesnít 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 isnít talking about going slightly over.

This doesnít excuse what Saracens did or negate the validity of our punishment.

I mention it only for the sake of balance given that many posts on here work on the assumption that, in the past, only Saracens have broken the rules.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
EXDJ 07 January, 2020 12:45
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.

You can see some of this on Companies House. Doesnít seem to be any sign of the players putting in any of their own money. Wiggy9 shows Wray put in £189,000 as equity vs £70 from Wigglesworth, but Wigglesworth owns 70% of the company. Vunprop and MN Property (Itoje) show large loans from someone, thought to be Wray. No real equity contribution. Of course we have no idea what the repayment terms look like. The Itoje loan has been rolled over at least once in full.

Meanwhile on Goodey, para 1(s) of schedule 1 of the cap rules applies:
ď 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;Ē
... will be treated as salary.

I assume hosting the Andy Goode suite is a bona fide service.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Sarriebone 07 January, 2020 12:54
Quote:
EXDJ
Meanwhile on Goodey, para 1(s) of schedule 1 of the cap rules applies:
ď 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;Ē
... will be treated as salary.

I assume hosting the Andy Goode suite is a bona fide service.
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? Debatable

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Poking With Sticks 07 January, 2020 13:08
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?

Don't know what the terms of the hospitality suite are, or indeed if any remuneration he gets for the role *does* come under the cap. What I'm saying is that if the role came up in an open application process, Goode would be well placed to apply for it - as would any former pro with some TV work under their belt (whether they'd played for Wasps or not).

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Sarriebone 07 January, 2020 19:23
Mark Mccall has his say [www.rugbypass.com]

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
ukms 07 January, 2020 20:17
Quote:
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.

Does that not make you think itís a bigger breach than just the odd Co-investment with a couple of players ?

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
JL904 07 January, 2020 22:15
Quote:
ukms
Quote:
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 itís 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.




Wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please - Niccolo Machiavelli

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Steve_M 08 January, 2020 01:51
Quote:
Duncan96
One interesting point by Mark Evans, Ex CEO of Sarries and Quins who declares himself a Quins fan and who doesnít 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 isnít 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 individualís prior approval".

I would suggest that Mark Evans should either keep quiet on the subject or name and shame with supporting evidence.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
ukms 08 January, 2020 04:02
Quote:
JL904
Quote:
ukms
Quote:
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 itís 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.


I guess time will tell .... I do feel however that anyone who thinks the club will be offloading players just for Ďperceptioní is a little niave or maybe still in denial as to what may really have happened.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Marlow Nick 08 January, 2020 07:33
The rumours (Yes I know its only rumours) are that the overspend is much more than 650k it's just that's all that falls strictly within the 2019/2020 and 2020/2021 rules the rest is clever interpretation. Therefore to comply this season the cuts may need to equate to roughly £650k but if the rules for next season get tightened then there may be even deeper cuts required in order to be compliant next season.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Wayoutwest 08 January, 2020 09:24
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...

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Duncan96 08 January, 2020 09:28
Quote:
Steve_M
Quote:
Duncan96
One interesting point by Mark Evans, Ex CEO of Sarries and Quins who declares himself a Quins fan and who doesnít 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 isnít 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 individualís prior approval".


I would suggest that Mark Evans should either keep quiet on the subject or name and shame with supporting evidence.

Well, that approach would have kept a great number of people quiet about Saracens for years. Mark Evans makes the important point that in Australian Rugby League there are 5 full time employees policing the cap with the power to ask for any private documents and copies of computer hard drives etc.

That kind of manpower and rights would have discovered a lot of things not found by one SC manager with few powers in England.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
EXDJ 08 January, 2020 09:40
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...

Part of the difficulty is that this is roughly halfway through the season and some salaries have already been paid, so to save £600k itís not just a case of offloading two £300k players, as they should (not allowing for end of seasons bonuses etc) have been paid half their salary, £150k each by now. To make £600k worth of savings by the end of the year youíd need to offload four £300k players.

If this had been addressed immediately at the start of Nov then youíd have slightly less of a job - 1/3 through the season, so three £300k players would have done it.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Brown Bottle 08 January, 2020 09:46
Quote:
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.



BB



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2020 10:01 by Brown Bottle.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Duncan96 08 January, 2020 11:14
Quote:
Brown Bottle
Quote:
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.

Back then I had an accountant acquaintance who told me he set up an EBT for a then successful Premiership club. These were devices for companies to avoid PAYE. They didnít work and the most famous case of a club coming a cropper with them was Rangers.

However, this advisor said that the Rugby club in question set one up not to avoid PAYE but to get round the salary cap (EBTs are specifically covered in the rules now perhaps because of this club).

The club was not Sarries or Bath and subsequently signed the declaration to say they were fully compliant with the rules. Perhaps EBTs were not caught at the time but it was still cheating and hypocritical of them.

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 canít.

Itís still legitimate for Mark Evans to make his claims publicly, though, especially as he lists in the podcast telltale signs which indicate a breach of the rules (all of which apply to Saracens in recent years btw).

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Brown Bottle 08 January, 2020 11:38
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 canít.

I'm not sure anyone believes Saracens are the only club who have ever transgressed.



BB

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Duncan96 08 January, 2020 12:52
Quote:
Brown Bottle
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 canít.

I'm not sure anyone believes Saracens are the only club who have ever transgressed.

Oh I do promise you BB that there have been many on here who have expressed that view. For instance, itís been often said that the only reason Saracens were not punished years ago was that they made a payment to everyone else to be let off.

From what EG has said recently (I.e. yes we cheated but so did many others) it seems more likely that nothing was done because it would have been easy to show that those saying they had not breached the rules were telling porkies.

As you can see from above there is already one person very annoyed at the idea that other clubs broke the rules and saying that the isubject should not be mentioned without categoric evidence, although that hasnít stopped people speculating quite fairly in public about Saracens over the years.

Just to repeat, I made the original post in the name of balance. Not to condone breaching the salary cap rules whenever that might happen.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
James_P 08 January, 2020 14:00
Quote:
Brown Bottle
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 canít.

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?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2020 14:00 by James_P.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Duncan96 08 January, 2020 14:03
Quote:
James_P
Quote:
Brown Bottle
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 canít.

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?

Exactly. And all Iím saying through the points in my earlier posts is that there are those with insight who say itís not the case.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Sarriebone 08 January, 2020 14:22
RugbyPass reporting that Kruis is off to Japan... [www.rugbypass.com]

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
James_P 08 January, 2020 15:08
Quote:

Exactly. And all Iím saying through the points in my earlier posts is that there are those with insight who say itís not the case.[/quote


Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
James_P 08 January, 2020 15:11
[quote James_P][quote

Exactly. And all Iím saying through the points in my earlier posts is that there are those with insight who say itís not the case.[/quote]

I think it was pretty widespread before the recent moratorium a few years back certainly. Not that aware of likely culprits as we were too busy almost going bust and losing play off finals to the likes of London Welsh to be impacted.

Hope this is all resolved soon for you all though in any case.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Rinkadink 08 January, 2020 16:06
Quote:
James_P
Quote:
Brown Bottle
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 canít.

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?

IIRC Leicester never made a clear statement on the matter back in 2015 or whenever it was. Or something different to the others anyway.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Poking With Sticks 08 January, 2020 16:15
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.

Cockers did: ďThe cap is there for a reason,Ē Richard Cockerill, the Leicester director of rugby, said. ďIt 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

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
JO'G 08 January, 2020 16:33
I would be very surprised if Cockers was aware of Tiggers exact financial position in 2015. I'm sure he was assured that what he said is correct, but only a couple of board members would know for certain, maybe only one

I'm not saying Tiggers were at fault, just that Cockers probably would not have been told the truth if they were not

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Rinkadink 08 January, 2020 17:04
Quote:
Poking With Sticks
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.

Cockers did: ďThe cap is there for a reason,Ē Richard Cockerill, the Leicester director of rugby, said. ďIt 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]

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Ayerzawannabe 08 January, 2020 20:13
Quote:
Rinkadink
Quote:
Poking With Sticks
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.

Cockers did: ďThe cap is there for a reason,Ē Richard Cockerill, the Leicester director of rugby, said. ďIt 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]

2 clubs not 3 was the talk.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Stopsy 09 January, 2020 10:43
Interesting in today's times: From the Saints site

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Captain Darling 09 January, 2020 12:04
My understanding of the 2013/14 and 2014/15 indiscretions was that several clubs had breached the cap by smaller amounts linked to overusing injury dispensation budget or overplaying academy players. At the same time though Sarries and Bath were rumoured to have been way over the cap. The member clubs agreed that the regulations needed tightening up and most clubs needed to clean up their act to make the cap worthwhile. Clubs with smaller indiscretions copped smaller undisclosed fines, Sarries and Bath copped bigger undisclosed fines. I believe Falcons were the only club who fought the matter being brushed under the carpet and undisclosed punishments?

Then the regs got tightened, clearly Sarries decided not to clean up their act as others did.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Sarriebone 09 January, 2020 18:08
Tweet from David Flatman:

Iím not one for rumours to be honest, so I donít ask people on the QT. Today, though, I got two messages from mates, one telling me a senior Sarries player had signed for Bath - ďDone dealĒ. Then another saying the same player had extended at Sarries. ďDone dealĒ. Back to my tea.

Goto Page: Previous1234567Next
Current Page: 3 of 7

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