Cueto's salary cap comments

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/club/10354187/Mark-Cueto-Premiership-salary-cap-is-being-ignored.html

Well duh.


Potentially connected to that Bath announced the other day that several players had taken pay cuts in return for longer contracts. No names given, but Banahan signed a 5 year contract so I would guess he would be one. This made me think, can/do clubs offer a retirement package? ie No money now but they get a bonus at the end which won't come under the cap?

It would be good if all the salaries etc were open, but I'm not sure that would quell the rumours of sponsors funding etc.

I feel like Cueto is trying to make an excuse for his side's inability to compete with the top sides.

Sale tried the high profile signings approach and it's largely failed. Stars like Gray and Vernon were meant to propel them to glory. Now Sale have gone the less high profile approach they are performing better.

Of course the two he must be referring to are Sarries and Bath. You would think that whoever is in charge of enforcing the cap would fix all their efforts on these two. Perhaps they are guilty but so far they have been found to have done no wrong doing.

beshocked wrote:I feel like Cueto is trying to make an excuse for his side's inability to compete with the top sides.

Can't agree with that. Cueto has never struck me as a man to make excuses.

To give this some context, and I stress this is 3rd or 4th hand information, but I have been told that Anthony Watson is on a £100,000 a year at Bath. I would imagine that he is not a top earner there, with the likes of James, Webber, Wilson, Louw, Ford, Eastmond, Joseph, Banahan all likely to be on more. If they were all on £200,000 then between the nine players mentioned that is £1.7 million (almost half of the cap). If they have a 40 man squad, it means the rest of them would be on an average of £77,500 a year.

Is that feasible? Are the likes of Louw et al likely to be on more than £200,000 a year? I don't have the answers to that and therein lies the whole problem with the salary cap. There is no transparency, and until there is there will always be those who doubt that all teams are compliant with it.

Ozzy3213 if it's not an excuse then what's the point of him mentioning the salary cap?

I believe Brian Smith when he mentioned the cap was also making excuses.

I don't see why the cap should be transparent. Do you shout from the rooftops what your salary is for example?

Surely innocent till proven guilty?

People make wrong assumptions for example. I have heard from a good source that James Johnston is not paid more at Saracens than he was at Quins. Players don't necessarily come to Saracens for the money anymore. Player welfare is important.

Interestingly in the off season Gary Gold (at a supporters question time) revealed that the average salary per person at the club has reduced for this season. There will be a few reasons for this, Louw is now almost certainly outside of the cap, the likes of Moody, Donald, Mears etc who were on big salaries have largely been replaced by younger (and therefore cheaper?) alternatives. I've no real idea of numbers though.

The clubs under suspicion will clearly be Saints, Leicester, Bath and Sarries.

As you say though Ozzy, there is no transparency and the only information around seems to be 'a mate of a mate who knows so and so's agents wife' or similar.

beshocked, I am a police officer, information on my salary is available to anybody who cares to look it up on the internet.

Of course it should be transparent. What we are talking about here is potentially teams trying to gain a competitive advantage in a sporting contest by paying over what they are allowed to do. If there was no cap, then absolutely no need for transparency around payment. But given that there is one, there should of course be transparency, otherwise the process is open to abuse.

Ozzy3213 wrote:
To give this some context, and I stress this is 3rd or 4th hand information, but I have been told that Anthony Watson is on a £100,000 a year at Bath.  I would imagine that he is not a top earner there, with the likes of James, Webber, Wilson, Louw, Ford, Eastmond, Joseph, Banahan all likely to be on more.  If they were all on £200,000 then between the nine players mentioned that is £1.7 million (almost half of the cap).  If they have a 40 man squad, it means the rest of them would be on an average of  £77,500 a year.

Is that feasible?  Are the likes of Louw et al likely to be on more than £200,000 a year?  I don't have the answers to that and therein lies the whole problem with the salary cap.  There is no transparency, and until there is there will always be those who doubt that all teams are compliant with it.

Seems a lot, especially when Tigers pay Dan Cole and Flood (the top earners) in the region of 150K, with Ayerza, Manu, the Youngs brothers, Croft and Parling 15-35K less!

*Those figures are not precise and have merely been read on Tigers' forums but I suspect they are pretty accurate.

As for transparency, it won't happen. Fans, players and journalists simply have to trust those who enforce the cap. Of course player welfare, HC rugby, opportunities to win trophies, recognition in the national side etc. all have an impact. In everyday life not everyone is solely motivated by the opportunity to earn as much as possible as quickly as possible and that is also the case for some, although not all, professional rugby players!

Well Ozzy3123 that's not a good example then. I don't believe all salaries should be transparent.

Bank managers sure but sports players? No.

Competitive advantage? Aren't teams always trying to do that anyway? Opportunism for example. 

I also feel like this salary cap thing is blown out of proportion. The French have one double ours but that never gets a mention.

Balance is needed. The top English sides need to be able to compete with the French.

Sometimes I believe that saying some sides break the salary cap is just making excuses for the failings in a club.

Bathman_in_London wrote:The clubs under suspicion will clearly be Saints, Leicester, Bath and Sarries.

for me Saints can be struck from that list, as they have a pretty small squad.

What I would like to see is not a player by player salary list - but rather the overall salary spends broken down into first team squad and academy etc.

We have to trust that the people monitoring this for PRL are at least checking the sums add up. Sadly we cannot be sure that the numbers they are given are true - so again it comes down to benefits that lie outside the salary system.

What does the actual salary cap include?

http://www.premiershiprugby.com/premiership/structure/salary_cap.php

Thanks bathman in london. It's a bit vague what's included though.

Plus getting that extra £240,000 for Saracens wouldn't be too hard:

George,Goode,Kruis,Ransom,Farrell,Fraser,Wray,Short

Not really vague is it? £4.25M base. Academy credits push it up to £4.5M max. One player excluded.

At least from next year the cap will be linked to revenue, which is a good step.

LT, I thought academy players only came into the cap if they played a certain number of games?

I would like to see an annual report produced which lists the steps taken to enforce the cap, the number of audits undertaken and punishments handed out though anonymity such be allowed.

formerly known as Sam wrote:LT, I thought academy players only came into the cap if they played a certain number of games?

Academy players are "free" so long as their salary does not exceed a certain amount. Not sure about other clubs, but Leicester pay a basic salary plus appearance fees (and possibly win bonuses) these latter can quite easily take an academy player above the threshold.

Agree about your other point (which I deleted from quote ) I would like to see some report from the Salary Cap Manager, or whatever he is called.

beshocked wrote:Well Ozzy3123 that's not a good example then. I don't believe all salaries should be transparent.

Bank managers sure but sports players? No.

Competitive advantage? Aren't teams always trying to do that anyway? Opportunism for example. 

I also feel like this salary cap thing is blown out of proportion. The French have one double ours but that never gets a mention.

Balance is needed. The top English sides need to be able to compete with the French.

Sometimes I believe that saying some sides break the salary cap is just making excuses for the failings in a club.

If you're employed by an organisation with an acting salary cap, I think public knowledge of your salary is quite reasonable. The point of making excuses is fair to an extent. If you could play for Leicester or Sale for the same money, you;d probably play for Leicester, unless it meant languishing on the bench. However, if there is a rule that is being broken by some clubs, and I think it probably is, then it's fair to question how that might favour them.

Mark Cueto: Premiership salary cap is being ignored  

I agree.

There appears to be no credible policing of the cap.  

Using the NFL as a model, salaries should be public domain information.  And validated by independent auditors each season.  

Potentially using a  baseball concept, if a team exceeds the cap, it must pay a tax which goes to the other teams.  Not sure I agree with this second point, but all salary information should be public.  A big hole in the system.

I do not see why individual salary details should be public. In fact I feel it would be detrimental to the harmonious management of a club, and make agents lives easier.

What I do want to know is:

Official playing salary costs for each club at a total level. A full list of the players included in that total and for what period of time. (ie medical exemptions drop off for a bit)
Name of the official who audited the records
What checks are in place.
What infringements occurred
Who infringed
What punishments were meted out.
That all detailed records are submitted to PRL and RFU and verified.


I do not need to know the details. I do need to believe that the policemen are doing their job. Now my understanding is that so far the breraches have been minor and accidental (ie a player from the academy suddenly coming into the playing budget etc) but this part for me is too opaque.

A minor infringement should see a fine - at least double the size of the infringement.
A medium infringement shoudl see a fine and a points deduction from the following season.
A serious infringement should see a club stripped of trophies won (including any entrance to an Elite European Competition - if such a thing exists) and lost points for the following season.
A very serious infringement should see automatic relegation as well as all the above.

Hood83 you say you think clubs are breaking the salary cap. There is no definitive proof of that as of now. Don't you believe they would vigorously focus on those clubs under the biggest spotlight?

Seems like a way to deflect criticism of his beloved Sale side just before playing Bath. If they lose he can blame the salary cap. Conveniently forgetting that Sale splashed cash on the likes of Vernon and Gray who came and went.

beshocked wrote:Hood83 you say you think clubs are breaking the salary cap. There is no definitive proof of that as of now. Don't you believe they would vigorously focus on those clubs under the biggest spotlight?

Seems like a way to deflect criticism of his beloved Sale side just before playing Bath. If they lose he can blame the salary cap. Conveniently forgetting that Sale splashed cash on the likes of Vernon and Gray who came and went.

This is true, there is no definitive proof. Perhaps they would vigorously focus on those under the spotlight, but I imagine there's only so much they can do. Personally, whatever resources are put towards this, I'd increase them.

He probably didn't forget, he probably just weighed up that Vernon and Gray were probably collectively on less than, say - Brits, B and M Vunipola, Stevens, Borthwick, Ashton, Strettle, Johnson...etc. Part of me likes the idea of a Sarries superclub, with players pushing each other on and developing through those they train with. But part of me thinks there's a playground bully system developing.

If you put more resources towards this where do you take it from? Perhaps take more money off the top 6 sides who compete in the HC?

Sale used to have a really strong side - 2005-6 but now it's a shadow of that. I think that's what perhaps Cueto is upset by.

Plus Sale must have offered Gray a lot of money to go to them. Gray rejected a £300k offer from the SRU so Sale probably offered more.

Mako probably wouldn't have been on too much as we signed him from Bristol. I don't think he would expected such a meteoric rise.

It's easier to attract players if you have more things to offer other than just money. Remember the Sarries side of 2009-10 wasn't exactly high profile.

Sarries are far from a superclub -only had our own stadium for less than a season. Our revenue and attendances need a lot of work.


I think there's too much focus on the salary cap instead of good coaching.

Exeter have shown with good coaching what can be achieved.

beshocked wrote:If you put more resources towards this where do you take it from? Perhaps take more money off the top 6 sides who compete in the HC?

Sale used to have a really strong side - 2005-6 but now it's a shadow of that. I think that's what perhaps Cueto is upset by.

Plus Sale must have offered Gray a lot of money to go to them. Gray rejected a £300k offer from the SRU so Sale probably offered more.

Mako probably wouldn't have been on too much as we signed him from Bristol. I don't think he would expected such a meteoric rise.

It's easier to attract players if you have more things to offer other than just money. Remember the Sarries side of 2009-10 wasn't exactly high profile.

Sarries are far from a superclub -only had our own stadium for less than a season. Our revenue and attendances need a lot of work.


I think there's too much focus on the salary cap instead of good coaching.

Exeter have shown with good coaching what can be achieved.

He is on record as saying that his deal with Sale was for less money than Glasgow were offering to keep him

beshocked wrote:If you put more resources towards this where do you take it from? Perhaps take more money off the top 6 sides who compete in the HC?

Sale used to have a really strong side - 2005-6 but now it's a shadow of that. I think that's what perhaps Cueto is upset by.

Plus Sale must have offered Gray a lot of money to go to them. Gray rejected a £300k offer from the SRU so Sale probably offered more.

Mako probably wouldn't have been on too much as we signed him from Bristol. I don't think he would expected such a meteoric rise.

It's easier to attract players if you have more things to offer other than just money. Remember the Sarries side of 2009-10 wasn't exactly high profile.

Sarries are far from a superclub -only had our own stadium for less than a season. Our revenue and attendances need a lot of work.


I think there's too much focus on the salary cap instead of good coaching.

Exeter have shown with good coaching what can be achieved.

Yeah I'm not sure what Sarries did offer other than money prior to them winning the Prem. Full disclosure - I think Sarries is a horrid, tacky club - some great coaching and much to be admired in the attitudes of some of the players and coaches, but a lot more I can't stand.

I think it's fair to say that Sale's fallen grandeur may be a reason for some of their gripes, fair point, but it doesn't mean that some clubs aren't breaking the cap and profiting from it.

As I've said before, I can't be too self-righteous as Glaws were definitely over the cap during the Dean Ryan era. I used to very much defend Glaws against such claims, but reality came crashing down when 11 players left and we were still at the cap!

There probably is some gamesmanship in Cueto's comments ahead of tonight's given Bath are likely to be on the sides over the cap. Without adding fuel to the fire, I heard from a very reliable source this week that Sarries are clearly over the cap as the players are being paid as consultants in South Africa. There is no evidence to this, but I would have no reason to doubt the validity of the comments either. Whether this is an avoidance/evasion issue I don't know, but it is apparent that Sarries are paying their players more than £4.2m.

Sarries have a fair few academy boys in their squad so it'll be £4.5M + marque

I don't think the extra 0.3 or the marquee player would cover the difference or explain the consultancy tag.

A 4.5m wage cap allows an average wage of 128.5k for a 35 man squad. Now considering that the biggest earner in the squad isn't included in that 35 you'd have to wonder how many players are on more than that average. You look at Tigers for instance, now when they looked to renew Twelvetrees contract they considered 100k to be first team player money. Glaws offered him the chance to be a key man and offered 150k. Now you'd say that was in line with the estimation of an average salary.

Now the media spin about the 300k contracts etc is probably just that. The media trying to spin some big stories.

i really don't see what the players salaries have to do with us? It's just silly that people think they should be published, the players are not paid by for the tax payers so i don't see why it should be any of our business.

I can see the total amount spent on the playing squad etc should be published, but nothing more than that.

HongKongCherry wrote:I don't think the extra 0.3 or the marquee player would cover the difference or explain the consultancy tag.

I'm sorry but we can't take "i heard it from a reliable source" as fact, we need to hear something a little more concrete before we start talking about it.

nathan wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:I don't think the extra 0.3 or the marquee player would cover the difference or explain the consultancy tag.

I'm sorry but we can't take "i heard it from a reliable source" as fact, we need to hear something a little more concrete before we start talking about it.

As I said, there was no evidence provided in the statement, as if there were it would indeed be an entirely different conversation. But is this not a forum of opinions? I think many of us suspect Sarries and a number of other sides to be breaching the cap and this is purely discussing that point. I fully appreciate my comment is only alleged and without any indication of the source it is difficult to quantify it; however, I tend to only make spurious comments about Bath and wouldn't feel the need to make a sensationalist comment unless I genuinely believed it.

HongKongCherry wrote:

nathan wrote:

HongKongCherry wrote:I don't think the extra 0.3 or the marquee player would cover the difference or explain the consultancy tag.

I'm sorry but we can't take "i heard it from a reliable source" as fact, we need to hear something a little more concrete before we start talking about it.

As I said, there was no evidence provided in the statement, as if there were it would indeed be an entirely different conversation.  But is this not a forum of opinions? I think many of us suspect Sarries and a number of other sides to be breaching the cap and this is purely discussing that point. I fully appreciate my comment is only alleged and without any indication of the source it is difficult to quantify it; however, I tend to only make spurious comments about Bath and wouldn't feel the need to make a sensationalist comment unless I genuinely believed it.  

Sorry didn't mean it to come across in such an arsey way. I just have a hard time believing that someone on here would hear about it and the people policing it wouldn't.

Didn't come across that way at all nathan  

To be honest I had exactly the same conversation when I heard it! That's why perhaps this is actually a salary cap avoidance scheme.

It's an interesting point though. How can the PRL monitor the entire income of the all the players in the AP. The likes of Stevens have interests in a cafe, Ben Woods used to rent out property, I think Attwood renovates property and there's no way It's fair or feasible to scrutinize those streams of income. Hence I suspect it could be fairly easily for corporate entities to provide cash in exchange for some after dinner speeches etc.

beshocked wrote:Well Ozzy3123 that's not a good example then. I don't believe all salaries should be transparent.

Bank managers sure but sports players? No.

Competitive advantage? Aren't teams always trying to do that anyway? Opportunism for example. 

I also feel like this salary cap thing is blown out of proportion. The French have one double ours but that never gets a mention.

Balance is needed. The top English sides need to be able to compete with the French.

Sometimes I believe that saying some sides break the salary cap is just making excuses for the failings in a club.

But if the reason to have a salary cap is to reduce the costs and make a more even league surely preventing teams from cheating is a very good thing.

Your point suggests that you think it is important that teams can and do cheat the system?

I always thought Paul Sackeys side job as a speciality cars sales man was wide open to abuse. Likewise guys with their own business interests. Who's to stop clubs investing in those businesses?

I think if you compare the fact that Quins are right up against the cap with their current squad (one of the reasons for no signings and why Johnston left). Then look at other teams and there has to either be some seriously over paid players at Quins or some cheating at other clubs.

You will always find those who want to cheat

Naming no names by a certain Foreign International at Sarries signed a deal, to be paid in 3 instalments over a 15 year period, blatantly manipulating the salary cap

Cue to is now meeting with the RFU to discuss the matter and spill the beans.

Gloucester chairman Ryan Walkinshaw

Well done @Mark_Cueto on his comments regarding Salary Cap. It's cheating, fines don't work, punishment must be public and points reduction.

Tiger chief what's your source?

Yappysnap so you think Quins failings are to do with the salary cap? I just feel like its being used as an excuse for failure.

Maestegmafia I think it's important that English clubs can compete in Europe. You talk about cheating the system - as of now no one has been found to cheat the system hence no bans. Perhaps the ruling needs changing - what is not allowed etc.

"feel like Cueto is trying to make an excuse for his side's inability to compete with the top sides"

Well they looked pretty good against Bath.

Sgt pooly that comment was made before the game. Plus I wouldn't call Bath a top side technically.

beshocked wrote:Tiger chief what's your source?

Yappysnap so you think Quins failings are to do with the salary cap? I just feel like its being used as an excuse for failure.

Maestegmafia I think it's important that English clubs can compete in Europe. You talk about cheating the system - as of now no one has been found to cheat the system hence no bans. Perhaps the ruling needs changing - what is not allowed etc.

Actually weren't a couple of clubs fined last year for it? The names weren't released but there was a press release.

I heard that neither were Saracens. Just another rumour though like those being thrown around by other posters.

Leicester were fined a couple of seasons ago when an Academy player (who usually do not count) amassed too many appearance and win bonuses and suddenly had to count against the cap.

This was deemed a minor infringement.

beshocked wrote:I heard that neither were Saracens. Just another rumour though like those being thrown around by other posters.

The rumours are being "thrown around" by club chairman and respected England/Lions internationals.

Not posters....!

Yappy, remember that living in London is considerably more expensive compared to living in the West Country or East Midlands. In Leicestershire you can get a big barn conversion on a decent bit of land for 350k, in some parts of London that won't get you a three bed flat. Might well mean that Quins need to give out bigger contracts to achieve a like for like deal with say the Saints.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Yappy, remember that living in London is considerably more expensive compared to living in the West Country or East Midlands. In Leicestershire you can get a big barn conversion on a decent bit of land for 350k, in some parts of London that won't get you a three bed flat. Might well mean that Quins need to give out bigger contracts to achieve a like for like deal with say the Saints.

There are no clubs in Central London.. The most central is Richmond... On the A3 a commute from a suburban area takes no time.

formerly known as Sam wrote:In Leicestershire you can get a big barn conversion on a decent bit of land for 350k, in MOST parts of London that won't get you a three bed flat.

Heck in many aprts you cannot get a 1 bed flat for that.