Wage cap - Updated with news on Saracens Punishment

by Soul Requiem Thu 23 Jan 2020 - 22:03

First topic message reminder :

quinsforever wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
quinsforever wrote:Risky - i haven't seen it suggested there are any tax issues with any of this

and if Lord Dyson accepted the payments were not "deliberate", merely "reckless", then i don't think your comments apply. plus they got them cleared by their own counsel.

clearly Wray, based on the advice he got, still thought the payments obeyed the letter of the salary cap regs, if not the spirit, as shown by his willingness to contest Dyson's penalty, right up until his advisers changed their mind on the strength of his case.

I think people are getting a bit too emotional about this.

yes, in hindsight, Saracens were over the cap. they were aggressive in co-payment schemes, and guess what, there was a difference of opinion between lawyers about that. no shocker there. the jury of the other 12 PRL(+ newcastle) clubs have now effectively doubled the points penalty all because Saracens wouldnt hand back their last two premiership titles. nothing to do with opening their books IMO.

so maybe people should just calm down a bit. no crime has been committed. Saracens look bad yes. but so do the PRL!

England have benefited significantly from having the core of their team play together consistently IMO. and i have loved watching Sarries win the Champs Cup, something the other english teams were absolutely nowhere near doing.

Yes it has. It's illegal under competition law.
umm, no it's not.

Erm yes it is, it's considered to be economic doping.

by Irish Londoner Tue 28 Jan 2020 - 15:42

Brendan wrote:This might be left field but could Sarries or any English club have two contracts given to players.

1 would be to play in the Prem and other domestic competitions and the second to play in Europe.

Could the club then arrugue that the cap is only for the Prem so European contracts shouldn't count. Could argue that other competitions that the play plays in such as 6N are counted though it is part of the season which they receive as part of being a club player.

It's a great idea - so you keep your best and highest paid players for Europe and the international games while the lesser "squad" players get on with the day to day games - with a few of the elite players every so often to get game time to keep them loose.

In fact it (apart from the cap issue) it's pretty much what the Irish provinces do !! Very Happy

by Brendan Tue 28 Jan 2020 - 15:57

Irish Londoner wrote:
Brendan wrote:This might be left field but could Sarries or any English club have two contracts given to players.

1 would be to play in the Prem and other domestic competitions and the second to play in Europe.

Could the club then arrugue that the cap is only for the Prem so European contracts shouldn't count. Could argue that other competitions that the play plays in such as 6N are counted though it is part of the season which they receive as part of being a club player.

It's a great idea - so you keep your best and highest paid players for Europe and the international games while the lesser "squad" players get on with the day to day games - with a few of the elite players every so often to get game time to keep them loose.

In fact it (apart from the cap issue) it's pretty much what the Irish provinces do !!

The big players would probably have playing time split 60/40 in favour of the Prem while lesser players must be 80/20.

by BamBam Tue 28 Jan 2020 - 16:01

Griffiths has left his role as interim CEO

What's happened there then?

by king_carlos Tue 28 Jan 2020 - 16:26

Brendan wrote:
Irish Londoner wrote:
Brendan wrote:This might be left field but could Sarries or any English club have two contracts given to players.

1 would be to play in the Prem and other domestic competitions and the second to play in Europe.

Could the club then arrugue that the cap is only for the Prem so European contracts shouldn't count. Could argue that other competitions that the play plays in such as 6N are counted though it is part of the season which they receive as part of being a club player.

It's a great idea - so you keep your best and highest paid players for Europe and the international games while the lesser "squad" players get on with the day to day games - with a few of the elite players every so often to get game time to keep them loose.

In fact it (apart from the cap issue) it's pretty much what the Irish provinces do !!

The big players would probably have playing time split 60/40 in favour of the Prem while lesser players must be 80/20.

The cap covers European games. Clubs could hypothetically challenge it I guess but given they signed up knowing the rules I don't know how far they'd get.

Lord Dyson's view of Nigel Wray arguing the cap was unlawful due to competition law was dismissive to be polite. Pointing out that Wray originally supported the cap, supported it's retention and agreed with the changes made in 14/15. Most importantly the clubs signed up knowing the rules.

I've said this a few times but by signing up with PRL a club that wants to flaunt the cap doesn't just take the bad. They also get full reward of the Professional Game Agreement between PRL and RFU. The agreement which provides enormous academy funding, a catchment area to keep young talent (Sarries being in London have a particularly attractive catchment area) and enjoyment of RFU scouting in the age groups.

Taking all that then flaunting the cap to drive wage inflation, making the game less sustainable isn't so much being caught with your hand in the cookie jar as it is taking all the cookies you want out the jar, taking a steaming **** in the cookie jar and popping the jar back in the cupboard.

by king_carlos Tue 28 Jan 2020 - 16:31

BamBam wrote:Griffiths has left his role as interim CEO

What's happened there then?

Lucy Wray left the board as well after the full report was leaked which named a company she was chairman of as the one breaking the cap with Itoje's image rights.

Arguably it could be Sarries trying to have a complete break with those associated with the off field misdemeanors.

The Wray family has reiterated it's financial backing which is the vital thing for Sarries going forward. Without that backing they would likely fold.

by No 7&1/2 Tue 28 Jan 2020 - 19:45

Oh another 70 points off.

by mikey_dragon Tue 28 Jan 2020 - 20:25

They already relegated them, so it makes no sense. If anything it just makes premiership rugby look stupid.

by yappysnap Tue 28 Jan 2020 - 20:34

mikey_dragon wrote:They already relegated them, so it makes no sense. If anything it just makes premiership rugby look stupid.

Actually.

The Championship clubs were asking if two teams shouldn't be relegated at the end of the season, as rules state 'bottom team relegated'. Prem rugby then had to do this to stop that future fiasco, obviously then lazy headline writers and Journos ran with it.

by mikey_dragon Tue 28 Jan 2020 - 20:36

Right so for that reason they're ensuring that Sarries finish bottom. Who are favourites to come up, Falcons?

by formerly known as Sam Tue 28 Jan 2020 - 21:07

mikey_dragon wrote:Right so for that reason they're ensuring that Sarries finish bottom. Who are favourites to come up, Falcons?

Falcons look certain to come up. There's no playoffs anymore so top of the league gets promoted.

Given how the relegated prem club nearly always goes back up the Championship clubs probably wanted to take a chance to grab promotion and the opportunities that brings. Plus two prem sides down would mean more TV coverage and interest in the league for next season particularly because one of those sides could be another big name in Tigers, Bath or Wasps.

by **Rugby Fan** Tue 28 Jan 2020 - 22:33

BamBam wrote:Griffiths has left his role as interim CEO

What's happened there then?

Just guessing, but his raison d'etre has gone. He was going to navigate this difficult year, and get Saracens under the cap, using his knowlege of how the Premiership works. Now, they are relegated, so it's a different job description. Perhaps better to have someone who can be in it for the long haul.

Still, it does all seem a bit sudden, and there is a separate story about his work at Middlesex, and whether he breached any cricker regulations about being an agent. That might have become a distraction.

by yappysnap Tue 28 Jan 2020 - 23:13

mikey_dragon wrote:Right so for that reason they're ensuring that Sarries finish bottom. Who are favourites to come up, Falcons?

Exactly, it's been badly handled but it's for a good reason I guess.

by yappysnap Tue 28 Jan 2020 - 23:14

formerly known as Sam wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:Right so for that reason they're ensuring that Sarries finish bottom. Who are favourites to come up, Falcons?

Falcons look certain to come up. There's no playoffs anymore so top of the league gets promoted.

Given how the relegated prem club nearly always goes back up the Championship clubs probably wanted to take a chance to grab promotion and the opportunities that brings. Plus two prem sides down would mean more TV coverage and interest in the league for next season particularly because one of those sides could be another big name in Tigers, Bath or Wasps.

Hadn't thought of that but it's a good point. Two Prem clubs in the Champ could have really helped with that leagues exposure! Especially as only one would come back up.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed 29 Jan 2020 - 3:17

One of the difficulties with the two down scenario, is introducing it during the season. Saracens are likely to field less competitive sides than they did at the start of the season, so it's slightly unfair on teams who have already faced them.

Saints (Away)
Leicester
London Irish (A)
Gloucester
Bath
Bristol (A)
Exeter
Worcester (A)
Quins

by yappysnap Wed 29 Jan 2020 - 3:35

I put this on the transfer thread but thought it'd be better here:

all bar one successful Prem teams have had to deal with losing key players after a successful season or two as negotiations come around and a players worth goes up. I don't know if it's feasible but it'd be interesting to make a clause in the cap that allows players who've been at a club for a number of years to deduct a % of their new salary from the cap, perhaps that amount could then increase dependent on number of years at the club.

This could help clubs retain valuable players and keep home grown talent in the country, both sides benefit from sticking with one club for a long time in the end.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed 29 Jan 2020 - 6:12

Mark Evans (ex Quins & Saracens) says successful rugby league sides in Australia rarely back up their titles because the value of their squad increases after a championship year. As they are already operating at the cap limit, they have no choice but to let players go. It is a feature, not a bug.

The cap is a mechanism to discourage profligacy and redistribute talent. If instead, the priority is squad continuity, and promoting England-qualified players, then major changes are probably required. The hints are that the review is thinking along those lines.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 29 Jan 2020 - 8:20

Theres the clear balance though. Redistributing of talent and promoting england qualified players ismt ying and yang.its great that saracens develop players as they do and personally like the way they more than other clubs it seems back and help their players off the pitch (though how much of that is trying to get round the cap is clearly open for debate). However we've seen how when your young core are settled how difficult it is for the next gen to get a foothold when there isnt the need to move them on. Tompkins, malins are 2 obvious ones who for my money should have been and could have been first team regulars for a good while rather than a luxury in a great squad.

by **Rugby Fan** Wed 29 Jan 2020 - 10:03

Listened to a number of this week's podcasts. While I don't think there'll ever be a meeting of minds over the matter, some of the "Saracens apologists", for want of a better term have conceded that, at the very least, Saracens handled things badly. On the other side of the equation, there are those who can see that although Saracen are guilty, their breaches are more mundane than, say, illicit payments through overseas shell companies.

Chris Ashton is an interesting example of cognitive dissonance. It's a bit unfair his name has been made public but he decided to speak about it. Even today, he regards his arrangement with Wray as a private matter, and money which he repaid. While acknowledging it looks fishy on the surface, he insists nothing was related to Saracens contract. Brian Moore in his podacst points out Ashton's view is irrelevant to the salary cap manger.

I'd be interested to know whether these side deals with Saracens players were brokered man-to-man, without their agents. I think that may have happened in Ashton's case, which is perhaps why he he considers it a separate matter, but Itoje's image rights deal must have involved his agent.

by WELL-PAST-IT Wed 29 Jan 2020 - 12:19

What is the point of deducting a further 70 points from Saracens, what does it do? They are already relegated no matter what they do.

Do they think that if the finish 60 points below the next to bottom club, that that club will think they deserved to stay up as they were a better side?

The PRL has just become vindictive, if another club gets caught will it get the same treatment.

by Khouli Khan Wed 29 Jan 2020 - 13:51

Rugby Fan wrote:Listened to a number of this week's podcasts. While I don't think there'll ever be a meeting of minds over the matter, some of the "Saracens apologists", for want of a better term have conceded that, at the very least, Saracens handled things badly. On the other side of the equation, there are those who can see that although Saracen are guilty, their breaches are more mundane than, say, illicit payments through overseas shell companies.

Chris Ashton is an interesting example of cognitive dissonance. It's a bit unfair his name has been made public but he decided to speak about it. Even today, he regards his arrangement with Wray as a private matter, and money which he repaid. While acknowledging it looks fishy on the surface, he insists nothing was related to Saracens contract. Brian Moore in his podacst points out Ashton's view is irrelevant to the salary cap manger.

I'd be interested to know whether these side deals with Saracens players were brokered man-to-man, without their agents. I think that may have happened in Ashton's case, which is perhaps why he he considers it a separate matter, but Itoje's image rights deal must have involved his agent.

Chris Ashton, the perfect patsy for the cheats.

Six munce ago, Cris cudunt evun spull rugbee. Now he are wun.

by Khouli Khan Wed 29 Jan 2020 - 13:54

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:What is the point of deducting a further 70 points from Saracens, what does it do? They are already relegated no matter what they do.

Do they think that if the finish 60 points below the next to bottom club, that that club will think they deserved to stay up as they were a better side?

The PRL has just become vindictive, if another club gets caught will it get the same treatment.

If they've systematically, repeatedly and unrepentantly done so, then yes, we should all hope so.

If they've been found guilty of it and its been a one off, then they should be punished to the full extent of what is allowed. And then Quins can keep complaining until the team in question IS relegated (which was fully deserved in the case of SalarySins).

by Irish Londoner Wed 29 Jan 2020 - 14:08

What is the point of deducting a further 70 points from Saracens, what does it do? They are already relegated no matter what they do.

The rules say the bottom club has to be relegated this is one way - albeit a sledgehammer to crack a nut - of ensuring it.

Do they think that if the finish 60 points below the next to bottom club, that that club will think they deserved to stay up as they were a better side?

No but they might think that if they had the money and players Saracens have they would have stayed up anyway.

The PRL has just become vindictive, if another club gets caught will it get the same treatment.

I do hope so if they are cheating to the same extent - I'd imagine the other clubs are either busy shredding contracts or talking to the Salary Cap Manager to get a clean blll.

by Old Man Wed 29 Jan 2020 - 15:21

I can see Saracens leaving European rugby over this

by **LondonTiger** Wed 29 Jan 2020 - 15:38

Old Man wrote:I can see Saracens leaving European rugby over this

They would be unlikely to get RFU approval for playing in England but in a non European competition.

by Brendan Wed 29 Jan 2020 - 22:26

LondonTiger wrote:
Old Man wrote:I can see Saracens leaving European rugby over this

They would be unlikely to get RFU approval for playing in England but in a non European competition.

You would figure that touring Super Rugby teams and beating them (If they don't go to New Zealand's South Island). Reckon Sky or BT would pay a nice bit of money for it. If they were European Champions it could be promoted as Europe's best take on the South to be Champions of the World. It would be great pre Lions stuff. And no cap to hold them back.

by No 7&1/2 Thu 30 Jan 2020 - 7:29

A Harlem globetrotters of rugby. To add to LT s point it may mean that england players didn't qualify for playing for England either. Cant say it would look positive.

by Geordie Thu 30 Jan 2020 - 8:08

yappysnap wrote:
formerly known as Sam wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:Right so for that reason they're ensuring that Sarries finish bottom. Who are favourites to come up, Falcons?

Falcons look certain to come up. There's no playoffs anymore so top of the league gets promoted.

Given how the relegated prem club nearly always goes back up the Championship clubs probably wanted to take a chance to grab promotion and the opportunities that brings. Plus two prem sides down would mean more TV coverage and interest in the league for next season particularly because one of those sides could be another big name in Tigers, Bath or Wasps.

Hadn't thought of that but it's a good point. Two Prem clubs in the Champ could have really helped with that leagues exposure! Especially as only one would come back up.

We are awful though.....its actually painful to watch and i cant think of many people actively wanting to watch us other than die hard Falcons who are just putting up with it. Hopefully we sack all our coaches and bring in some young modern thinking ones for next season.

by formerly known as Sam Thu 30 Jan 2020 - 8:54

yappysnap wrote:
formerly known as Sam wrote:
mikey_dragon wrote:Right so for that reason they're ensuring that Sarries finish bottom. Who are favourites to come up, Falcons?

Falcons look certain to come up. There's no playoffs anymore so top of the league gets promoted.

Given how the relegated prem club nearly always goes back up the Championship clubs probably wanted to take a chance to grab promotion and the opportunities that brings. Plus two prem sides down would mean more TV coverage and interest in the league for next season particularly because one of those sides could be another big name in Tigers, Bath or Wasps.

Hadn't thought of that but it's a good point. Two Prem clubs in the Champ could have really helped with that leagues exposure! Especially as only one would come back up.

Yep especially if those clubs were Saracens and Leicester as would look likely at this point. Tigers are arguably the best supported team in the country and Saracens European Champions from last season. Fans at Ampthill for instance could only dream of seeing that calibre of team and player come down for a competitive fixture, to have both in the same season...

by king_carlos Tue 4 Feb 2020 - 23:15

Sounds like Sarries are going to lose Allianz sponsorship.

Also rumours they are trying to set-up a match against South Africa next season to recoup some revenue.

by Khouli Khan Wed 5 Feb 2020 - 6:36

king_carlos wrote:Sounds like Sarries are going to lose Allianz sponsorship.

Also rumours they are trying to set-up a match against South Africa next season to recoup some revenue.

Or because they're homesick....

I hope Saracens collapse and are buried. When I think of how they got to where they were, over all those years at the expense of so many other teams, it really sticks in my craw.

by Geordie Wed 5 Feb 2020 - 8:54

i dont mind Saracens.

by No 7&1/2 Wed 5 Feb 2020 - 9:05

Theres alot of good about saracens as long as they're not cheating the cap.

by Old Man Wed 5 Feb 2020 - 11:21

Khouli Khan wrote:
king_carlos wrote:Sounds like Sarries are going to lose Allianz sponsorship.

Also rumours they are trying to set-up a match against South Africa next season to recoup some revenue.

Or because they're homesick....

I hope Saracens collapse and are buried. When I think of how they got to where they were, over all those years at the expense of so many other teams, it really sticks in my craw.

Why would you wish that on any team?

They are paying their penalties for cheating ( excessively) that should be enough?

by Gooseberry Wed 5 Feb 2020 - 12:06

Imagine a world in which Tigers had been dismantled for paying players under the table in the "amatuer" era, or one where Harlequins had been disbanded for blood gate ( funnily enough led by one of those same players ....)

The one thing I'm still waiting for in all this HMRC to start pulling people up. The complexities of some of these loan deals into shell companies is extremely dubious. I'm not even going to pretend to know the tax implications but youd think someone would be having a look into anything that could be taxable or illegal.

by thebandwagonsociety Wed 5 Feb 2020 - 13:32

Gooseberry wrote:Imagine a world in which Tigers had been dismantled for paying players under the table in the "amatuer" era, or one where Harlequins had been disbanded for blood gate ( funnily enough led by one of those same players ....)

The one thing I'm still waiting for in all this HMRC to start pulling people up. The complexities of some of these loan deals into shell companies is extremely dubious. I'm not even going to pretend to know the tax implications but youd think someone would be having a look into anything that could be taxable or illegal.

Imagine a world where a team that had been found guilty of breaching a salary cap for a couple of seasons, were given the option the following season of either opening up their books and being transparent to show compliance with something they were previously in breach of and choosing instead to take relegation in order to keep their books closed.

They should have stuck to their guns that a cap review can only occur after each season. The penalty would then be on next season dropping down the following season. It was an ad-hoc request with no rules or precedent to support the inspection or the punishment. Saracens voluntarily chose to take the relegation, why?

Or do they need to be relegated next year, to be back up the year after when an English top flight gets ring-fenced? No, there would never be anything so untoward going on here.

by quinsforever Wed 5 Feb 2020 - 22:28

thebandwagonsociety wrote:
Gooseberry wrote:Imagine a world in which Tigers had been dismantled for paying players under the table in the "amatuer" era, or one where Harlequins had been disbanded for blood gate ( funnily enough led by one of those same players ....)

The one thing I'm still waiting for in all this HMRC to start pulling people up. The complexities of some of these loan deals into shell companies is extremely dubious. I'm not even going to pretend to know the tax implications but youd think someone would be having a look into anything that could be taxable or illegal.

Imagine a world where a team that had been found guilty of breaching a salary cap for a couple of seasons, were given the option the following season of either opening up their books and being transparent to show compliance with something they were previously in breach of and choosing instead to take relegation in order to keep their books closed.

They should have stuck to their guns that a cap review can only occur after each season. The penalty would then be on next season dropping down the following season. It was an ad-hoc request with no rules or precedent to support the inspection or the punishment. Saracens voluntarily chose to take the relegation, why?

Or do they need to be relegated next year, to be back up the year after when an English top flight gets ring-fenced? No, there would never be anything so untoward going on here.

the points been made several times before. PRL demanded Sarries hand back their two premiership titles. a sanction that was not permitted under the salary cap rules and sanctions. i would have told PRL exactly where to park that request too.

anyone who just says its about "not opening the books" is wilfully ignoring the other part of the request "hand back titles". must do better....

by quinsforever Wed 5 Feb 2020 - 22:31

Khouli Khan wrote:
king_carlos wrote:Sounds like Sarries are going to lose Allianz sponsorship.

Also rumours they are trying to set-up a match against South Africa next season to recoup some revenue.

Or because they're homesick....

I hope Saracens collapse and are buried. When I think of how they got to where they were, over all those years at the expense of so many other teams, it really sticks in my craw.

and i hope they rest their england players for 20/21, cruise back up to the premiership, and win it convincingly. especially as they wont have any Champions Cup distraction to worry about having to rotate their squad for the season after.

in fact, they will probably have space under the salary cap by then to be able to lure some interesting players for a season without the distraction of Euro squad rotation....

by Brendan Thu 6 Feb 2020 - 10:19

KK why do you want or are happy to have the PRL break their own rules to punish Sarries yet aren't happy Sarries broke rules.

Independent panel reviewed it and Sarries (either the review or PRL) deemed the punishment was the fine and 2 35 point deductions to run together.
Once Sarries looked like the 35 points was no problem and someone else would go down they changed the rules and gave them 70pts extra for what. Something that hadn't happened (35 for this season) and a max 35pts for I guess the third season where they were only 100k over.

While the rules were poorly written it seems the punishment of the extra 70pts seems to go against them. Sarries probably took the drop as it will be a Lions year so will now lose less players to it and the players will be better rested for the new season.

Or it could be Tigers were going down. There was talk last year of would the powers that be let Tigers go down. Not that I would believe that.

by formerly known as Sam Thu 6 Feb 2020 - 10:28

The additional point we're after Sarries accepted relegation. Some Championship clubs pointed out that under the current rules the bottom prem club has to go down. So if Sarries caught for instance Tigers then the Championship clubs were arguing that both Tigers and Sarries should be relegated with first and second from the Championship going up in their place. This would give a Championship club otherwise never likely to get promotion the chance (the relegated prem nearly always goes back up) and also gives the other Championship clubs four games against big name opposition which is better for TV, attendance and sponsorship.

by Brendan Thu 6 Feb 2020 - 11:18

formerly known as Sam wrote:The additional point we're after Sarries accepted relegation. Some Championship clubs pointed out that under the current rules the bottom prem club has to go down. So if Sarries caught for instance Tigers then the Championship clubs were arguing that both Tigers and Sarries should be relegated with first and second from the Championship going up in their place. This would give a Championship club otherwise never likely to get promotion the chance (the relegated prem nearly always goes back up) and also gives the other Championship clubs four games against big name opposition which is better for TV, attendance and sponsorship.

But where did the 70 points come from in the rules or was it just ignored. I know why it was done but I don't get the justification from people who think Sarries breaking rules is bad while the PRL breaking rules is fine as Sarries deserve it. Does the wage cap rules say which season the wage cap points deductions would apply to.

I wonder if the second team in the championship went to court over it could they have a case that the PRL broke their own rules to avoid allowing the second championship team come up

by **LondonTiger** Thu 6 Feb 2020 - 12:03

Brendan wrote:
formerly known as Sam wrote:The additional point we're after Sarries accepted relegation. Some Championship clubs pointed out that under the current rules the bottom prem club has to go down. So if Sarries caught for instance Tigers then the Championship clubs were arguing that both Tigers and Sarries should be relegated with first and second from the Championship going up in their place. This would give a Championship club otherwise never likely to get promotion the chance (the relegated prem nearly always goes back up) and also gives the other Championship clubs four games against big name opposition which is better for TV, attendance and sponsorship.

But where did the 70 points come from in the rules or was it just ignored. I know why it was done but I don't get the justification from people who think Sarries breaking rules is bad while the PRL breaking rules is fine as Sarries deserve it. Does the wage cap rules say which season the wage cap points deductions would apply to.

I wonder if the second team in the championship went to court over it could they have a case that the PRL broke their own rules to avoid allowing the second championship team come up

They could easily justify a further 70 point deduction as Sarries would be deemed to have exceeded the Salary Cap by large margins in 3 seasons - each coming with a maximum 35 point deduction. (noting I am not a fan of punishing rule breaking by imposing a punishment that in turn breaks the rules)

by Brendan Thu 6 Feb 2020 - 15:22

Was one of the 3 years only 100k because the joint ventures were deemed wages in the year they were created rather than the length of the contract which was signed around the same time.

£1.1m of overspend in the 2016-17 season, just over £98,000 in 2017-18 and £906,000 in 2018-19.

My understanding was to two 35pts applied to run concurrent were for 16/17 and 18/19. Applying 35pts for 17/18 would set a massive precedent. As the cap is 7m they were 1.4% over it in 17/18. That would work out at 2.8k over the limit per point deduction.

The rules were poorly written but it seems that the PRL applied the rules badly so as to effectively ring fence the Premership to the 12 current teams plus a yoyo team. It could have allowed another Exeter to happen (or welsh)

by king_carlos Thu 6 Feb 2020 - 15:39

LondonTiger wrote:
Brendan wrote:
formerly known as Sam wrote:The additional point we're after Sarries accepted relegation. Some Championship clubs pointed out that under the current rules the bottom prem club has to go down. So if Sarries caught for instance Tigers then the Championship clubs were arguing that both Tigers and Sarries should be relegated with first and second from the Championship going up in their place. This would give a Championship club otherwise never likely to get promotion the chance (the relegated prem nearly always goes back up) and also gives the other Championship clubs four games against big name opposition which is better for TV, attendance and sponsorship.

But where did the 70 points come from in the rules or was it just ignored. I know why it was done but I don't get the justification from people who think Sarries breaking rules is bad while the PRL breaking rules is fine as Sarries deserve it. Does the wage cap rules say which season the wage cap points deductions would apply to.

I wonder if the second team in the championship went to court over it could they have a case that the PRL broke their own rules to avoid allowing the second championship team come up

They could easily justify a further 70 point deduction as Sarries would be deemed to have exceeded the Salary Cap by large margins in 3 seasons - each coming with a maximum 35 point deduction. (noting I am not a fan of punishing rule breaking by imposing a punishment that in turn breaks the rules)

The rules state that the maximum 35 point deduction is a starting point by my understanding? I really dislike the vagueness of that in the rules though.

If the Jeff is to keep the cap (which in my opinion it absolutely needs to) then alterations are needed to reward clubs more for producing EPS players. The fines and points deduction need to be in black-and-white but I'd be happy with them being even harsher to be honest.

PRL member clubs get a massive amount from the professional game agreement between PRL and RFU. Both those organisations take a lot of flack, much of it warranted but the amount they have done to grow the academy structure in England is outstanding. I don't think complying to what in reality is a very high salary cap aimed at producing long term financial viability is much of a sacrifice in return for what the clubs get out of the professional game agreement.

by Tattie Scones RRN Fri 7 Feb 2020 - 12:37

Oops.....seems like they fielded an ineligible player against Racing 92 and out now being investigated by EPCR.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/relegated-saracens-are-facing-a-european-rugby-misconduct-hearing-friday-evening

by TightHEAD Fri 7 Feb 2020 - 13:14

Throw them out of the cup.

by thebandwagonsociety Fri 7 Feb 2020 - 14:36

Saracens are just being picked on at this stage.

What would the fine be?

by Brendan Fri 7 Feb 2020 - 14:58

A ban from European competitions next year seems about right

by Geordie Fri 7 Feb 2020 - 15:13

Wow it really has become a witch hunt now hasnt it.

by king_carlos Fri 7 Feb 2020 - 16:06

It's hardly unheard of for teams to get fines or points deductions in the group stages for fielding ineligible players. Pretty sure London Welsh and Lyon have both been hit by it in recent seasons.

Really poor management by Sarries to not realise the work permit was about to expire.

Hardly a witch hunt. Just poor off field management being punished within the rules of the comp...

by Irish Londoner Fri 7 Feb 2020 - 16:06

Tattie Scones RRN wrote:Oops.....seems like they fielded an ineligible player against Racing 92 and out now being investigated by EPCR.

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/relegated-saracens-are-facing-a-european-rugby-misconduct-hearing-friday-evening

Who would get their place if they were taken out of the competition.

No lover of what Saracens have done but is this just a way of making sure that there isn't the embarassment of having the European champions are not playing second tier rugby next season?

by Sponsored content