Saracens Are At It Again

From the Guardian:

"Saracens are leading calls to scrap the Aviva Premiership salary cap, with chief executive Edward Griffiths claiming it “has served its purpose.”
In a statement released on their website on Friday morning, Griffiths also said that believes he has the backing of six other English clubs.
Premiership Rugby introduced a salary cap in 1999. It is currently £5m per club, and will rise by £500,000 for next season, when clubs will also be able to nominate two marquee “excluded players.”
Griffiths’ reported comments come ahead of next year’s World Cup in England, after which many of the world’s top stars are expected to base themselves in Europe on lucrative club deals.
New Zealand star Dan Carter has already agreed a £1.3m per year contract with wealthy French club Racing Metro, while Australia back Adam Ashley-Cooper is to join Bordeaux-Begles.
"The salary cap has served its purpose,” Griffiths said."
“It would be a pity if the world’s top players light up the World Cup on English soil, and then leave to play club rugby in France.
“If the salary cap is left to forbid the required investment, it will kill any hope of growth.
“English clubs must compete in the European Champions Cup against Irish and French sides spending two or three times as much on players. Imagine the likes of Arsenal or Manchester City being asked to compete with Barcelona, Bayern (Munich) and Real Madrid under those circumstances. It would never happen, but it happens in rugby."
“The combination of England hosting the Rugby World Cup in 2015 and Sevens featuring in the Rio Olympic Games in 2016 creates a historic, but fleeting, platform for rugby to grow dramatically."
“It is time to seize that opportunity, to ensure a level playing field in Europe, to build the strongest league in world rugby and to let players earn market-related salaries. We must release the handbrake and step on the accelerator."
“We understand some clubs fear the removal of the salary cap will cause wage inflation, yet, in reality, salaries are already being driven by the French clubs."
“We can either sit back and become a ’lowest common denominator’ league, or we can leap forward.”

So in other words, huzzah for Saracens, Bath, Northampton, Tigers, Wasps and Quins (I assume these are the six in favour) and a large foxtrot oscar to the rest of English rugby.

Says '6 other English clubs' which would make 7.

I dont think that is enough to make for a vibrant and viable league. I dont mind him making these comments because we cant sit still, but do hope the rest of English pro rugby tells him where to stick it, for now. For that reason pro rugby should fully embrace the championship teams also.

I for one am astonished that they have said this.Nobody could have forseen this was the direction the owners of the big English clubs wanted to take their league.

Irish Londoner wrote:“English clubs must compete in the European Champions Cup against Irish and French sides spending two or three times as much on players. .

If he thinks the Irish spend two to three times as much on players as the English he is a an idiot.
I don't think he is an idiot so I can only conclude he is a bare faced liar - what is clear is the money spent on players at the 3 senior Irish provinces (inclusive of central contracts) is on a par with the English salary cap.

Wasn't it Saracens in the final with Toulon last year?

Edward Griffiths should sort out his own club first before talking about the salary cap!

There are many things that Saracens and Edward Griffiths need to do like improving the car park situation - anyone who has been to Allianz Park will know what I mean, improve customer service, improve the culture at Saracens (not allow the players to rule the roost - one player in particular is treated like he is a god, the management and coaches continue to bow to his supposed greatness), stick to brand guidlines (the match balls per game make a mockery of this), get max attendance every game.

Have to look at the other side too though:

Edward Griffiths is a hard worker and has quite a few good qualities that get forgotten - he is ambitious and innovative (some good, some bad), his energy and efforts did help get the stadium, he can be a very good speaker and friendly. It's just sometimes he needs someone to clip him round the ear when he does something stupid and say - that's wrong.


Edward Griffiths is also an avid Arsenal fan with football like ambitions it is no surprise to see him coming out with this.

My God, I'm shocked!  This came out of nowhere.  Nobody would have seen this coming!


Anyway, enough of that schmaltz  - the bit I find really funny is that this guy kisses International's ass in creating the "platform" for more interest and more growth, whilst he's part of a collective of clubs (both English and French) that want to openly stand in opposition to everything that International is - want to control it, control when it's played, control when it's allowed interfere with club schedules, control when clubs choose to release players to their respective Nations.

If it was left to people like Griffiths, the WC that is arriving on England's doorstep in 2015 would be a pale shadow of the show it will be.  As, if he had his way, most of the International players would be already operating in the salary-cappless AP and only joining up (with the grumbling consent of their owners) with their National sides a week or so before the event.
And of course, if Griffith had his way entirely, Club rugby itself wouldn't be taking a break either to look at the WC he now feels compelled to praise.  That would be too much time taken, too much money being wasted - club must go on, time is money - indeed, offer the public an alternative to the crappy Union owned game.

This is bad for Rugby. The sport is not mature enough to even consider this kind of step. Remember the first days of formal professionalism when it seemed a bit of a free-for-all? In my opinion one of the reason Rugby grew at a measured pace was the salary cap. This needs to be off the table quickly.

I think Arsenal actually pay far lower wages than say Barcelona, so maybe not the best example there.

I don't know, but I expect that at the moment there is a lot of behind the scenes action going on with agents and offers for post WC. Again guessing, but I would imagine that this comment is probably due to frustration that all (or most at least) of the big names will be choosing to go to France and wouldn't give England a second thought. Certainly the likes of AAC choosing to go to a mid table French side rather than a top UK/Ireland one shows who the real power in world rugby is right now.

That said, I don't believe that success off the back of the world cup is connected with SH stars particularly. What would really give the AP a boost next year would be England winning or at least getting to the semis of the WC. That would bring in far more interest than a crocked Carter turning up for a couple of games.

I dont get it, he could have signed Dan carter for 2 millions and put it under the "marquee player" tag hence not counting against the salary cap? does Saracens has a marquee player? (only know that Louw is the one for bath).

doctor_grey wrote:This is bad for Rugby.  The sport is not mature enough to even consider this kind of step.  Remember the first days of formal professionalism when it seemed a bit of a free-for-all?  In my opinion one of the reason Rugby grew at a measured pace was the salary cap.  This needs to be off the table quickly.

It's as inevitable as Christmas Doc. It's the next logical step. It was always the next step after the ERCC thing. Any follower in England who ever believed that such a next logical step wouldn't take place was being a tad naive.

But England WILL have its League to compete with the French. It will steal top quality players from France in time and entice others who still haven't arrived in Europe to go there rather than France. The Clubs will be marketed and sold to ever increasingly wealthy owners and the sky is the limit.

Unlikely SecretFly as clubs like Saints and Worcester are carefully owned and managed by families that have done so for years. Tigers is owned by the fans (or a selection of fans who were able to buy shares in Leicester FC Ltd years back). Those clubs aren't readily available for purchase but are able to veto the proposal with their PRL voting rights.

Whocares I think it's only the first 300k of the marquee player's salary that is exempt though I thought I read somewhere that was to rise with the new agreement.

formerly known as Sam wrote:Unlikely SecretFly as clubs like Saints and Worcester are carefully owned and managed by families that have done so for years. Tigers is owned by the fans (or a selection of fans who were able to buy shares in Leicester FC Ltd years back). Those clubs aren't readily available for purchase but are able to veto the proposal with their PRL voting rights.

We'll see how unlikely into the future. Shares are shares and everyone has a sale price.

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:This is bad for Rugby.  The sport is not mature enough to even consider this kind of step.  Remember the first days of formal professionalism when it seemed a bit of a free-for-all?  In my opinion one of the reason Rugby grew at a measured pace was the salary cap.  This needs to be off the table quickly.

It's as inevitable as Christmas Doc. It's the next logical step. It was always the next step after the ERCC thing. Any follower in England who ever believed that such a next logical step wouldn't take place was being a tad naive.

But England WILL have its League to compete with the French. It will steal top quality players from France in time and entice others who still haven't arrived in Europe to go there rather than France. The Clubs will be marketed and sold to ever increasingly wealthy owners and the sky is the limit.

Mate, I don't think anyone is surprised Sarries owner made public what we all suspected lurked in the deep recesses of his fetid little heart.  That would be truly naive.  Since this was clearly where he wanted to go, it is better to have it in the open, no?  I do not know with certainty, but strongly suspect based upon people I know, this does not reflect the wants of the the majority of Premiership and Championship clubs, nor those of the fans.  Will be interesting to see how Griffiths is able gain allies.

It was not so difficult to rally support for the new Euro Rugby proposal as it really was a modification to an existing mechanism.   Then even easier when things became an us-versus-them for many of the parties involved.   It will be much harder to engage support to lead English Rugby into the unknown, especially with a lot of rational support within Rugby already sceptical.

I personally think the cap is fine as it is, its also due to go up last year, which combined with 2 marquee players and the allowance for academy players seems pretty decent to me. Odd choice of using Barca for his example, a team that has historically relied on a very good academy and youth set up.

Beshocked, who is the player you are referring to?

SecretFly wrote:  Shares are shares and everyone has a sale price.

Very true, but based on the share holders I've spoken to down the years the sale price would be 1 gun to shoot them with and 1 crowbar to prise their dead fingers apart and take the share certificate from them.

doctor_grey wrote:
It was not so difficult to rally support for the new Euro Rugby proposal as it really was a modification to an existing mechanism.   Then even easier when things became an us-versus-them for many of the parties involved.   It will be much harder to engage support to lead English Rugby into the unknown, especially with a lot of rational support within Rugby already sceptical.

I'd disagree with that one entirely Doc - but that's a story for the past.

The future for England itself is the PRL as an overseeing body.  I've been told its objective is to generate income for Clubs.  So far so reasonable and it doesn't apologise for it and shouldn't.  That's a reasonable goal in a professional sporting organisation.
And by how I've seen many Club guys and PRL head talk in the last year or so, I'm convinced the ERCC shenanigans were just the first step in gaining 'parity' with considered rivals in Europe.  It's absolutely against the logic PRL used in their arguments about HEC to now say the same logic will not inform their furture goals of gaining more 'parity' with European rivals - namely the French.  

The PRL will not play ball with one proverbial hand tied behind their back.  They simply won't and the more influencial people in PRL, of which I'm sure Griffith is but one, will begin outlining the detailed 'reasoning' to their less enthusiastic comrades.  And in time, they'll win the argument, because they fill the argument with talk of potential for growth throughout the entire league, they'll explain the trickle down effect of more income generated at the top.  They'll persuade, and they'll win.

Big wrote:

SecretFly wrote:  Shares are shares and everyone has a sale price.

Very true, but based on the share holders I've spoken to down the years the sale price would be 1 gun to shoot them with and 1 crowbar to prise their dead fingers apart and take the share certificate from them.

Hmmm................... Everyone says that to higher the price.

I'd be more worried about rugby in the SH. Super rugby hasn't exactly been a hit with sponsors and tv and with SA and Aus already losing players left right and center this could be yet another blow to rugby over there.

Interesting times ahead for club rugby.

Rather than scrapping the salary entirely does anyone else think that it's more likely that he's actually just trying to force a compromise where it is raised? Not saying he wouldn't love to scrap it though!

stub wrote:Rather than scrapping the salary entirely does anyone else think that it's more likely that he's actually just trying to force a compromise where it is raised? Not saying he wouldn't love to scrap it though!

I agree with this, this is the "shot across the bows" to see the reaction, no doubt it will be linked to the next partnership agreement with the RFU, rather like the "we want to employ the referees" was a coded way of saying "we want the referees to control the game in a certain way that suits us"...

Of course if by 2017, the Avivia is matching the viewing figures of the football, London Irish are spending money like Chelsea, Championship clubs have better squads than the Top 14, Russian gangsters sorry "biznizmen" and reactionary Islamist oil kingdoms are ploughing millions into the game to buy Rotherham or Bedford and the stands at Barnet are full of prawn sandwich eaters playing £250 for corporate seats and buffet with Nigel Wray then it will all be worth it, won't it ?

SecretFly wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:
It was not so difficult to rally support for the new Euro Rugby proposal as it really was a modification to an existing mechanism.   Then even easier when things became an us-versus-them for many of the parties involved.   It will be much harder to engage support to lead English Rugby into the unknown, especially with a lot of rational support within Rugby already sceptical.

I'd disagree with that one entirely Doc - but that's a story for the past.

The future for England itself is the PRL as an overseeing body.  I've been told its objective is to generate income for Clubs.  So far so reasonable and it doesn't apologise for it and shouldn't.  That's a reasonable goal in a professional sporting organisation.
And by how I've seen many Club guys and PRL head talk in the last year or so, I'm convinced the ERCC shenanigans were just the first step in gaining 'parity' with considered rivals in Europe.  It's absolutely against the logic PRL used in their arguments about HEC to now say the same logic will not inform their furture goals of gaining more 'parity' with European rivals - namely the French.  

The PRL will not play ball with one proverbial hand tied behind their back.  They simply won't and the more influencial people in PRL, of which I'm sure Griffith is but one, will begin outlining the detailed 'reasoning' to their less enthusiastic comrades.  And in time, they'll win the argument, because they fill the argument with talk of potential for growth throughout the entire league, they'll explain the trickle down effect of more income generated at the top.  They'll persuade, and they'll win.

You are much more fatalistic on this than I am.  I mentioned the Euro Rugby as a point of comparison, really for context only.  In that regard, replacing one club/region/franchise competition with another although with different qualification, sponsorship, governance, is still far closer to each other than uncapping the Premiership.  To me there is no fixed reference point and results can not be predictable.  

I do not look at the PRL as a monolithic organisation.  The PRL is a group of independent stakeholders.  They were generally behind the Euro Rugby proposals and stayed aligned throughout.  I do not think there is any kind of broad based support for this and hopefully that could derail the proposal.  The PRL is not there to convince or strong arm the clubs. It is an umbrella organisation of the clubs.  If the support is not there the proposal will die.  I would also differentiate between a Griffiths proposal and an agreed PRL proposal.  

The question I have is why Griffiths chose to go public and why now?  Is this, as mentioned above, a negotiating tactic to apply pressure then compromise to an increased Cap?  Is this a true proposal, though I cant see this being approved?  Does Griffiths believe going to the media will galvanise public support?  Or pressurise other clubs?  There are no answers today, but my guess is the public will be against and this could rebound in a messy way.

Right now there are only a few clubs which break even or make a small profit.  If the Cap is significantly increased over what has already been agreed for the 2015 season or eliminated altogether, then there are probably only two clubs, Sarries and Bath, who have the finances to continue to spend.  That would give them a tremendous advantage over everyone else.  It is illogical to me that other clubs would vote to approve a proposal so much at odds with their own best interests.

belovedfrosties wrote:I personally think the cap is fine as it is, its also due to go up last year, which combined with 2 marquee players and the allowance for academy players seems pretty decent to me.  Odd choice of using Barca for his example, a team that has historically relied on a very good academy and youth set up.

Beshocked, who is the player you are referring to?  

I'll let you work that one out. I am not going to say who it is.

beshocked wrote:

belovedfrosties wrote:I personally think the cap is fine as it is, its also due to go up last year, which combined with 2 marquee players and the allowance for academy players seems pretty decent to me.  Odd choice of using Barca for his example, a team that has historically relied on a very good academy and youth set up.

Beshocked, who is the player you are referring to?  

I'll let you work that one out. I am not going to say who it is.

Can't you at least tell me? I'm curious to know now. Ashton?

The Saint wrote:

beshocked wrote:

belovedfrosties wrote:I personally think the cap is fine as it is, its also due to go up last year, which combined with 2 marquee players and the allowance for academy players seems pretty decent to me.  Odd choice of using Barca for his example, a team that has historically relied on a very good academy and youth set up.

Beshocked, who is the player you are referring to?  

I'll let you work that one out. I am not going to say who it is.

Can't you at least tell me? I'm curious to know now. Ashton?

Not going to say as I said in my previous post.

I think he's talking out of his arse tbh. I don't believe 7 clubs want to abolish the cap any more than I believe the Irish teams have a wage bill 3x that of the English clubs.

beshocked wrote:

The Saint wrote:

beshocked wrote:

belovedfrosties wrote:I personally think the cap is fine as it is, its also due to go up last year, which combined with 2 marquee players and the allowance for academy players seems pretty decent to me.  Odd choice of using Barca for his example, a team that has historically relied on a very good academy and youth set up.

Beshocked, who is the player you are referring to?  

I'll let you work that one out. I am not going to say who it is.

Can't you at least tell me? I'm curious to know now. Ashton?

Not going to say as I said in my previous post.

PM?

Although sin é claimed Madigan was on 350k (euroes) which is 2 or 3 times more than he would get in the Jeff.

I'm trying to think who the other 6 would be. Bath is one, both Wray and Craig both called for it to be scrapped a few years ago. But the others? I'd like to know which are actually at the cap now. Tigers, can't really see them wanting it scrapped. Same with Saints, Gloucester and Exeter. All run with a profit and are proud of it. They live within their means and are able to compete (except Gloucester but bad coaching can do that to a team, old coaches not current). Quins weren't that far off breaking even other than the stadium developments. None of these could compete with Bath or Saracens if the cap was scrapped without significantly changing their structure, possible but why would they when they can just keep the cap? I just don't see the teams that would go for it. Especially since they've had a goodish year in Europe.

The Saint wrote:

beshocked wrote:

The Saint wrote:

beshocked wrote:

belovedfrosties wrote:I personally think the cap is fine as it is, its also due to go up last year, which combined with 2 marquee players and the allowance for academy players seems pretty decent to me.  Odd choice of using Barca for his example, a team that has historically relied on a very good academy and youth set up.

Beshocked, who is the player you are referring to?  

I'll let you work that one out. I am not going to say who it is.

Can't you at least tell me? I'm curious to know now. Ashton?

Not going to say as I said in my previous post.

PM?

No.

beshocked wrote:

The Saint wrote:

beshocked wrote:

The Saint wrote:

beshocked wrote:

belovedfrosties wrote:I personally think the cap is fine as it is, its also due to go up last year, which combined with 2 marquee players and the allowance for academy players seems pretty decent to me.  Odd choice of using Barca for his example, a team that has historically relied on a very good academy and youth set up.

Beshocked, who is the player you are referring to?  

I'll let you work that one out. I am not going to say who it is.

Can't you at least tell me? I'm curious to know now. Ashton?

Not going to say as I said in my previous post.

PM?

No.

The fans at Sarries are worse than their bloodthirsty owners.

HammerofThunor wrote:Although sin é claimed Madigan was on 350k (euroes) which is 2 or 3 times more than he would get in the Jeff.

I'm trying to think who the other 6 would be. Bath is one, both Wray and Craig both called for it to be scrapped a few years ago.  But the others?  I'd like to know which are actually at the cap now. Tigers, can't really see them wanting it scrapped. Same with Saints, Gloucester and Exeter. All run with a profit and are proud of it.  They live within their means and are able to compete (except Gloucester but bad coaching can do that to a team, old coaches not current). Quins weren't that far off breaking even other than the stadium developments. None of these could compete with Bath or Saracens if the cap was scrapped without significantly changing their structure, possible but why would they when they can just keep the cap?  I just don't see the teams that would go for it.  Especially since they've had a goodish year in Europe.

Agree. Seems illogical. Can see no benefit for any club except Bath and Saracens.
It is a good thing most of the Premiership clubs don't comment too much (or at all) on topics such as this to the press. Keep the discussions private, as they should be. I know it is frustrating when discussing a seismic change like this to not have it known publicly where each clubs sits on this issue. But keeping quiet is the professional way to run the business.

From the Sarries website (Champs Cup game v Munster):

Bona fide Saracens supporters who have neither bought a season-ticket nor purchased tickets for two or more matches at Allianz Park so far this season may apply for tickets by calling the Supporter Services office at 0203 675 7200, leaving a message outside office hours, and their request will be considered. Callers with an Irish accent will be treated with suspicion.

In short, any Saracens supporter wishing to attend this epic match should book their tickets before 17h00 on Tuesday 22 December.

There is a French poster (actually there are a couple) on Munsterfans who says that Toulon think that Clermont are behind the recent Toulon fines/bannings.

This is what happens when clubs are running the competition - they are not neutral. Any wonder they are suspicious as the acting Director General of the new Swiss company is a former chair/CEO of Clermont.

This is all going to end in tears.

Ag shame, the French only has 14 teams, no need for Saracens to worry, there are plenty more SH players to milk after the French have taken their pick.

Biltong wrote:Ag shame, the French only has 14 teams, no need for Saracens to worry, there are plenty more SH players to milk after the French have taken their pick.

You mean plenty more SA players. They love your boys.

Bathman_in_London wrote:I think Arsenal actually pay far lower wages than say Barcelona, so maybe not the best example there.

Griffiths two examples are both poor examples. Arsenal live within their means - unlike Sarries, while City who are bankrolled by rich people failed the EUFA Fair Play test and are currently banned from buying players.

Would love to know who the other 6 clubs who want the cap removed. At Leicester Simon Cohen stated at a shareholders meeting that paying up to next years cap would stretch the finances.

beshocked wrote: one player in particular is treated like he is a god, the management and coaches continue to bow to his supposed greatness

you really have fallen out of love with young Owen.

doctor_grey wrote:

HammerofThunor wrote:Although sin é claimed Madigan was on 350k (euroes) which is 2 or 3 times more than he would get in the Jeff.

I'm trying to think who the other 6 would be. Bath is one, both Wray and Craig both called for it to be scrapped a few years ago.  But the others?  I'd like to know which are actually at the cap now. Tigers, can't really see them wanting it scrapped. Same with Saints, Gloucester and Exeter. All run with a profit and are proud of it.  They live within their means and are able to compete (except Gloucester but bad coaching can do that to a team, old coaches not current). Quins weren't that far off breaking even other than the stadium developments. None of these could compete with Bath or Saracens if the cap was scrapped without significantly changing their structure, possible but why would they when they can just keep the cap?  I just don't see the teams that would go for it.  Especially since they've had a goodish year in Europe.

Agree.  Seems illogical.  Can see no benefit for any club except Bath and Saracens.  
It is a good thing most of the Premiership clubs don't comment too much (or at all) on topics such as this to the press.  Keep the discussions private, as they should be.  I know it is frustrating when discussing a seismic change like this to not have it known publicly where each clubs sits on this issue.  But keeping quiet is the professional way to run the business.  

Bristol and Wuss are both included in the process due to their shares. I'd expect Bristol have the backing to scrap the salary cap, but I agree I can't see any others wanting this.

LondonTiger wrote:

beshocked wrote: one player in particular is treated like he is a god, the management and coaches continue to bow to his supposed greatness

you really have fallen out of love with young Owen.

Ah, I should have guessed that. Not the first time Beshocked has fallen out of love with an overrated Saracen (Ashton) .

I hold my head in shame at referencing the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2881134/Saracens-Bath-face-heavy-fines-point-deductions-alleged-breaches-salary-cap-regulations.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

but it seems possible that the PRL sleuths are closing in, and Griffiths has mounted a pre-emptive campaign. If this is the case, I don't think he'll garner much sympathy.

Interesting times ahead.

Dubbelyew L Overate wrote:I hold my head in shame at referencing the Daily Mail:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2881134/Saracens-Bath-face-heavy-fines-point-deductions-alleged-breaches-salary-cap-regulations.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490

but it seems possible that the PRL sleuths are closing in, and Griffiths has mounted a pre-emptive campaign. If this is the case, I don't think he'll garner much sympathy.

The Daily Mail?  
Was the article before or after the piece about the 20 stone woman who gave birth to 7 alien children and is looking for benefits?  

To be fair, the article seemed unusually lucid for The Mail (the Rugby article not the alien woman one), and actually employed polysyllabics and complete sentences.  And sure seems to debunk any question about whether the Premiership clubs were in agreement with Griffiths.  The PRL statement seems pretty clear, as do the statements reported in the article.  I checked on line and there are now articles in more mainstream publications, so this is a Daily Mail article which is true!

If true should get the book thrown at them.

 Esp Sarries who have been talking out of their backside recently.

Sarries facing potential relegation?

Abolishing the cap would be awful. The AP is a much better league than the Top 14, and if the best English sides struggle to compete with Toulon then that's something I can live with in return for a more entertaining league where young English players get plenty of chances.

AP sides are progressing in terms of financial viability, but there are no big profits to go on huge increases in salary and I just cannot see that most AP sides want the cap to go, which would make them either less competitive or reliant on a wealthy benefactor.

Maybe the best solution is for Saracens to apply to join the Top 14.

No matter what anyone says I still have trouble working out how Sarries have such a quality squad with strength in depth without finding a way around the current cap, so maybe they want it increased before any 'loopholes' are spotted and closed ...

Heaf wrote:No matter what anyone says I still have trouble working out how Sarries have such a quality squad with strength in depth without finding a way around the current cap, so maybe they want it increased before any 'loopholes' are spotted and closed ...

Well, it seems they will be investigated. I wonder what will come from it.

Building on some other people's thoughts, I wonder if there is a requirement for the salary cap to apply to league matches as well as Euro matches. In other words, can teams hire players specifically for the Euro competition, as weird and probably unworkable as it seems?

Somehow I feel that a top offshore accountant would be able to fool a rfu one but maybe I am being uncharitable.

Interestingly in that article the Exeter CEO said he wanted the cap to increase to 8m.

If Bath are guilty then we deserve sanctions although aside from burgess (who must be the marquee) I don't see where the cash has gone really. It would be ironic if we were busted now when for years we were the only club playing by the rules!

doctor_grey wrote:

Heaf wrote:No matter what anyone says I still have trouble working out how Sarries have such a quality squad with strength in depth without finding a way around the current cap, so maybe they want it increased before any 'loopholes' are spotted and closed ...

Well, it seems they will be investigated.  I wonder what will come from it.

Building on some other people's thoughts, I wonder if there is a requirement for the salary cap to apply to league matches as well as Euro matches.  In other words, can teams hire players specifically for the Euro competition, as weird and probably unworkable as it seems?  

Hopefully enough points will be deducted by the league so that they don't qualify for European competition.

Its highly unlikely any top player would be interested in joining any club where they would only be able to play max 9 games a season.

Sin é wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:

Heaf wrote:No matter what anyone says I still have trouble working out how Sarries have such a quality squad with strength in depth without finding a way around the current cap, so maybe they want it increased before any 'loopholes' are spotted and closed ...

Well, it seems they will be investigated.  I wonder what will come from it.

Building on some other people's thoughts, I wonder if there is a requirement for the salary cap to apply to league matches as well as Euro matches.  In other words, can teams hire players specifically for the Euro competition, as weird and probably unworkable as it seems?  

Hopefully enough points will be deducted by the league so that they don't qualify for European competition.

Its highly unlikely any top player would be interested in joining any club where they would only be able to play max 9 games a season.

I quite agree.  My question is more of a legalistic question.  Is it possible to be over the salary cap if not engaged in a league fixture?  

I think the key to any salary cap is transparency.  I would have to believe that the players rumoured to being payed or receiving top-ups by off-shore accounts know they are involved in something set up to skirt the rules.  So they should be equally culpable as any team which pays them.

The players don't sign up to the cap though. The salary cap is just a voluntary agreement between a group of club owners who play in a particular league. If the club doesn't abide by the League's rules, they can only be punished by the league (by fines, expulsion etc).

I'd imagine that is the reason that the RFU/FFR don't impose or oversee the cap as it could be legally challenged.

Isn't it about time 'World Rugby' stepped in and spoke out against these clowns who are destroying the game by their own greed?