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:Roderick Flashheart
One of the deals that PRL was advised to investigate was the move by Jim Hamilton, the Scotland lock, from Montpellier to Saracens in 2014. Hamilton chose to go to Saracens despite the interest of other English clubs.
Crumbs
Quote:Gray_Lensman
Are you saying that a member of the Saracens coaching staff in 2018 knew about salary cap breaches? Hard to believe that an assistant coach/defence coach was aware but his boss wasn't
Quote:I think you're right so it's mergedwolfgangvonb77
I agree this should all be put into the SC folder as im scolling and its all SC related stuff.
Quote:Toga
Hi, new to this forum. I'm a Saracens fan thoroughly peed off with all the 'hang 'em' high types taking great joy in seeing what's happening to Saracens.
I haven't read all of this thread or the many others but does anyone know if the club/Nigel have plans to go after PwC and the law firm who gave them advice? Especially regards the Itoje image rights valuation being so out of kilter with what the SCM said they were worth.
Also, Paul Gustard... given we know Quins were the main driver behind this, putting together their dossier on Saracens, what is the general consensus on the input Gustard might have added to the inside info?
Quote:Gray_Lensman
Toga, read the report and you'll see what the difference between the two share values amounted to and why there is no point going after PWC. Particularly as Nigel Wray said in his evidence he didn't depend on it, instead using his instinct and business know-how.
Quote:ukmsQuote:Toga
Hi, new to this forum. I'm a Saracens fan thoroughly peed off with all the 'hang 'em' high types taking great joy in seeing what's happening to Saracens.
I haven't read all of this thread or the many others but does anyone know if the club/Nigel have plans to go after PwC and the law firm who gave them advice? Especially regards the Itoje image rights valuation being so out of kilter with what the SCM said they were worth.
Also, Paul Gustard... given we know Quins were the main driver behind this, putting together their dossier on Saracens, what is the general consensus on the input Gustard might have added to the inside info?
Does it matter ? You broke the rules and got caught eventually...... why ‘go after’ anyone ?
Does it matter that Gustard may (or may not) have lifted the lid on breaches after he left the club ? Perhaps he disagreed with what was going on but felt powerless to act whilst part of the club ... does it matter if anyone blew the whistle .... it’s quite common in the big wide world if there is wrongdoing.
Quote:TogaQuote:ukmsQuote:Toga
Hi, new to this forum. I'm a Saracens fan thoroughly peed off with all the 'hang 'em' high types taking great joy in seeing what's happening to Saracens.
I haven't read all of this thread or the many others but does anyone know if the club/Nigel have plans to go after PwC and the law firm who gave them advice? Especially regards the Itoje image rights valuation being so out of kilter with what the SCM said they were worth.
Also, Paul Gustard... given we know Quins were the main driver behind this, putting together their dossier on Saracens, what is the general consensus on the input Gustard might have added to the inside info?
Does it matter ? You broke the rules and got caught eventually...... why ‘go after’ anyone ?
Does it matter that Gustard may (or may not) have lifted the lid on breaches after he left the club ? Perhaps he disagreed with what was going on but felt powerless to act whilst part of the club ... does it matter if anyone blew the whistle .... it’s quite common in the big wide world if there is wrongdoing.
Thanks for your reply UKMS. When I want to read the opinion of a dickhead I'll bear you in mind. Cheers
Quote:Toga
Hi, new to this forum. I'm a Saracens fan thoroughly peed off with all the 'hang 'em' high types taking great joy in seeing what's happening to Saracens.
I haven't read all of this thread or the many others but does anyone know if the club/Nigel have plans to go after PwC and the law firm who gave them advice? Especially regards the Itoje image rights valuation being so out of kilter with what the SCM said they were worth.
Also, Paul Gustard... given we know Quins were the main driver behind this, putting together their dossier on Saracens, what is the general consensus on the input Gustard might have added to the inside info?
Quote:Marlow Nick
For starters how about this for a new clarification of the rules that all clubs including Saracens have to meet starting next season … 100% of all transactions between connected parties and companies wholly or partly owned by connected parties is to be considered 100% inside the cap at the gross value of the transaction. This includes co-investments, buying and selling player's company shares, dealing in image rights, publicity & appearance fees etc.
Quote:ElephantJuiceQuote:Marlow Nick
For starters how about this for a new clarification of the rules that all clubs including Saracens have to meet starting next season … 100% of all transactions between connected parties and companies wholly or partly owned by connected parties is to be considered 100% inside the cap at the gross value of the transaction. This includes co-investments, buying and selling player's company shares, dealing in image rights, publicity & appearance fees etc.
I think everybody already did that - apart from Saracens...
Quote:JL904Quote:Toga
Hi, new to this forum. I'm a Saracens fan thoroughly peed off with all the 'hang 'em' high types taking great joy in seeing what's happening to Saracens.
I haven't read all of this thread or the many others but does anyone know if the club/Nigel have plans to go after PwC and the law firm who gave them advice? Especially regards the Itoje image rights valuation being so out of kilter with what the SCM said they were worth.
Also, Paul Gustard... given we know Quins were the main driver behind this, putting together their dossier on Saracens, what is the general consensus on the input Gustard might have added to the inside info?
Toga, if only you'd take the time to read the threads, you'd realise that most visiting fans engage in reasonable debate.
Most of us Saracens fans will acknowledge all the good Mr Wray has done over the years - but his cavalier attitude towards the salary cap has hurt and upset us too. Sadly, the best thing he can do now is to keep his head down, try and find a buyer for his stake in the club and walk away. It's a real shame that his continued association with the club will continue to foster resentment in rival fans, and it's painful to say I can't blame them.
Sorry, but posts such as yours are like throwing petrol on dying embers.
Quote:Marlow Nick
There have been several Saracens fans expressing their horror with how the management have behaved but clinging to the belief that the players were not complicit. Can someone explain to me how Itoje was not fully implicated by the report that apparently discovered the man lauded as one of the best in the world, where the press speculated if he would become the first mlion pound a year player, where McCall is quoted as saying he's concerned how to retain him due to cap constraints... accepted a salary so far below his market value that he's not even in the top ten paid locks in the league. Not the top ten players. The top ten locks. Is anyone going to claim that this intelligent man believed everything was above board?
Quote:Duncan96Quote:ElephantJuiceQuote:Marlow Nick
For starters how about this for a new clarification of the rules that all clubs including Saracens have to meet starting next season … 100% of all transactions between connected parties and companies wholly or partly owned by connected parties is to be considered 100% inside the cap at the gross value of the transaction. This includes co-investments, buying and selling player's company shares, dealing in image rights, publicity & appearance fees etc.
I think everybody already did that - apart from Saracens...
Can I just say that I have outlined in detail before why I believe this would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. While acknowledging your honestly held opinion Nick and the reasons why you hold that opinion, to engage would be Groundhog Day crossed with Einstein's definition of insanity on my part.
It raises an interesting point though. Both on this and on other threads things have been posted by Saracens supporters which are positive to Saracens and primarily aimed at other Saracens supporters. Without fail those posts are met with one or more negative comments from an increasing number of non Saracens supporters.
The replies are usually (although not always) reasonable. E.g. Reference is made to the uniquely good things that go on at Saracens to which the reply is that Lance Armstrong did some good charitable work. A reasonble point but nevertheless negative.
So, not unsurprisingly given recent events, we have a message board which is a free for all and anything positive posted about Saracens will receive a negative comment.
Now maybe that's a proper function for this board and it has been useful in recent times to educate ourselves with counter opinions. But my impression is that things are getting increasingly repetitive and Saracens supporters are now drifting away to more positive forums on e.g. facebook, having felt that negativity has run its course and, as we go forward, the club and supporters need a more positive environment to see us through.
So, my point is, perhaps not yet but quite soon, I think the people who run this board have a choice. Either carry on as is and perhaps have a board with a decreasing Saracens presence (we all have to move on at some point) or decide along with everyone else who is going to stick with Saracens that, without denying what has happened in the past, we are going to see our way through the next couple of years with a positive attitude.
The latter will mean being quite strict in removing negative, albeit reasonable comments from non Saracens supports.
Right: hard hat on for incoming flak about how we just want to stick our heads in the sand (which I'm not proposing. I'm just floating the discussion: what is this board for)
Quote:Toga
There has also been reference to extensive legal consultation on whether the co-investment vehicles were outside the cap. That advice appears to be not worth the paper it was written on either.
Quote:StatesmanQuote:Marlow Nick
There have been several Saracens fans expressing their horror with how the management have behaved but clinging to the belief that the players were not complicit. Can someone explain to me how Itoje was not fully implicated by the report that apparently discovered the man lauded as one of the best in the world, where the press speculated if he would become the first million pound a year player, where McCall is quoted as saying he's concerned how to retain him due to cap constraints... accepted a salary so far below his market value that he's not even in the top ten paid locks in the league. Not the top ten players. The top ten locks. Is anyone going to claim that this intelligent man believed everything was above board?
It’s worse than that - the PRL have effectively accused him/Saracens of converting income into capital gain. From memory the difference between his marginal rates of tax on income and gains is c25% - so I reckon he owes the tax authorities £200k!
Quote:Duncan96
Can I just say that I have outlined in detail before why I believe this would be throwing the baby out with the bath water. While acknowledging your honestly held opinion Nick and the reasons why you hold that opinion, to engage would be Groundhog Day crossed with Einstein's definition of insanity on my part.
It raises an interesting point though. Both on this and on other threads things have been posted by Saracens supporters which are positive to Saracens and primarily aimed at other Saracens supporters. Without fail those posts are met with one or more negative comments from an increasing number of non Saracens supporters.
The replies are usually (although not always) reasonable. E.g. Reference is made to the uniquely good things that go on at Saracens to which the reply is that Lance Armstrong did some good charitable work. A reasonble point but nevertheless negative.
So, not unsurprisingly given recent events, we have a message board which is a free for all and anything positive posted about Saracens will receive a negative comment.
Now maybe that's a proper function for this board and it has been useful in recent times to educate ourselves with counter opinions. But my impression is that things are getting increasingly repetitive and Saracens supporters are now drifting away to more positive forums on e.g. facebook, having felt that negativity has run its course and, as we go forward, the club and supporters need a more positive environment to see us through.
So, my point is, perhaps not yet but quite soon, I think the people who run this board have a choice. Either carry on as is and perhaps have a board with a decreasing Saracens presence (we all have to move on at some point) or decide along with everyone else who is going to stick with Saracens that, without denying what has happened in the past, we are going to see our way through the next couple of years with a positive attitude.
The latter will mean being quite strict in removing negative, albeit reasonable comments from non Saracens supports.
Right: hard hat on for incoming flak about how we just want to stick our heads in the sand (which I'm not proposing. I'm just floating the discussion: what is this board for)
Quote:myleftboot
Not disputing your points Nick, but does this top ten paid locks list exist? I'd like to read it
Quote:Marlow Nick
What changes should be made to future regulations and how they should be enforced and communicated
What will be the impact on the Saracens squad
What do Saracens management need to do in order to rebuild trust with the fans and the other PRLmembers
Quote:Sarriebone
At this point I don't think any fan can argue the the SC regs need a serious overhall. Most of all the credits system. It doesn't seem fair that having a world class academy player playing for England so heavily punishes the team that brought them through their academy.
Ex: Saracens pay Owen Farrell a (rumoured) £750k/yr in the 2018/19 season, he played 17 matches for Saracens, 9 for England and 1 enforced rest week as he playeed more than 65% of England matches.
Saracens played 31 matches (Premiership and Europe) which means he was available for 55% of Saracens matches.
The maximum credits for Faz are capped at £80k for combined academy and England credits. So England have him for 45% of the season and yet credits only cover 10.6% of his Salary.
Without descending in to "you shouldn't have so many internationals then", does that seem fair to anyone? Where is the incentive to develop players to international standard?
Quote:Do you have a reference for this and could you copy it here or similar?Marlow Nick
(Itoje) accepted a salary so far below his market value that he's not even in the top ten paid locks in the league. Not the top ten players. The top ten locks.
Quote:Gray_Lensman
Clearly that credit system is flawed and will doubtless be part of the review, But the 'you shouldn't have so many internationals then' argument has some truth in it. Breaching the salary cap allowed the building of a squad that other clubs could not match. With a functioning cap a player like Farrell might have been deemed too expensive to keep when products from the academy who cost less started to force their way into the side. And so he would have moved to another club. That's what other clubs had to do. If the decision was made to retain Farrell within the cap then another player would have been released. You can't divorce breaching the cap from how Saracens both retained players and continued to recruit no matter the obvious issues with the credit system.
Quote:RinkadinkQuote:Do you have a reference for this and could you copy it here or similar?Marlow Nick
(Itoje) accepted a salary so far below his market value that he's not even in the top ten paid locks in the league. Not the top ten players. The top ten locks.
Cheers.
Quote:Salary Cap Report
259 at paras 97 to 102 Mr Rogers explains in some detail why he considers that the employment payments made to XXXXXX were an undervalue for a player of his ability and experience
Quote:Guardian
It is understood from multiple sources that Itoje’s salary is lower than might be expected – he is not in the top 10 of Premiership earners in his position in the second row.
Quote:Sarriebone
At this point I don't think any fan can argue the the SC regs need a serious overhall. Most of all the credits system. It doesn't seem fair that having a world class academy player playing for England so heavily punishes the team that brought them through their academy.
Ex: Saracens pay Owen Farrell a (rumoured) £750k/yr in the 2018/19 season, he played 17 matches for Saracens, 9 for England and 1 enforced rest week as he playeed more than 65% of England matches.
Saracens played 31 matches (Premiership and Europe) which means he was available for 55% of Saracens matches.
The maximum credits for Faz are capped at £80k for combined academy and England credits. So England have him for 45% of the season and yet credits only cover 10.6% of his Salary.
Without descending in to "you shouldn't have so many internationals then", does that seem fair to anyone? Where is the incentive to develop players to international standard?
Quote:Marlow NickQuote:Sarriebone
At this point I don't think any fan can argue the the SC regs need a serious overhall. Most of all the credits system. It doesn't seem fair that having a world class academy player playing for England so heavily punishes the team that brought them through their academy.
Ex: Saracens pay Owen Farrell a (rumoured) £750k/yr in the 2018/19 season, he played 17 matches for Saracens, 9 for England and 1 enforced rest week as he playeed more than 65% of England matches.
Saracens played 31 matches (Premiership and Europe) which means he was available for 55% of Saracens matches.
The maximum credits for Faz are capped at £80k for combined academy and England credits. So England have him for 45% of the season and yet credits only cover 10.6% of his Salary.
Without descending in to "you shouldn't have so many internationals then", does that seem fair to anyone? Where is the incentive to develop players to international standard?
One correction for you. Assuming Farrell is your marquee player then the credits you get for him are zero because he's outside the cap. One has to wonder why Saracens consider Farrell is worth £750k for only 17 matches. Personally I think they're crazy to pay him that much. He must be laughing when he gets £1M a year (£750k from Saracens plus £250k from England) for about 27 matches while other top quality fly halves are getting half that amount from their clubs. That is a choice Saracens management make.
There is of course a valid argument for the other players that are inside the cap but still market forces should apply. Eddy has called up 34 players … roughly an average of 3 per club. Saracens great academy factory have supplied 5 players. If you're asking for extra credits for the extra 2 players maybe that's reasonable but if I were you I wouldn't just ask for extra credits which give no money just permission to spend more of your own money. I'd be demanding that England pay more for players.
What I don't believe Saracens deserve extra credits for is Mako, Billy, Elliott, Liam, Sean, Rhys etc. Your management chose to headhunt these players from other clubs. You are getting credits for them. If they're not worth it them let them go back to clubs that do want them.
Quote:Toga
I've thought for years that the RFU must laugh themselves hoarse at how cheap they get English professional rugby delivered to them on a plate.