Premiership Round 20

First topic message reminder :

Here we go again

Saturday 12th March
Worcester Warriors v Exeter Chiefs 14:30
Leicester Tigers v London Irish 15:00
Newcastle Falcons v Saracens 15:00
Sale v Gloucester 15:00

Sunday 13th March
Bristol v Harlequins 15:00
Northampton Saints v Wasps 15:00

Overspend figures by season:

16-17 - £147,750.00
17-18 - £64,718.05
18-19 - £30,886.69
19-20 - £73,586.32

Also a small fine for failing to declare payments in 2020/21 but even with those payments Tigers were under the cap so no overspend there.

So 2018-19 when Falcons were relegated with Tigers in 11th (10 point difference in the table though) the overspend was £30k. Embarrassing to be so abysmal and over the cap even if by a small amount that season.

For the seasons with bigger overspends we are significantly over the cap but still comfortably under the overrun limit in the old regs. The overrun limit was a ceiling at which you get a fine (referred to as an overrun tax) but no points deduction. For reference Quins (around £20k overspend from memory) and Wasps (around £40k overspend again from memory) have also been charged overrun taxes in the past.

If Tigers level of overspend was intentionally just under that limit for points deduction then it would've been Simon Cohen to be shady enough to think it was as good idea but also incompetent enough to run an absolutely dire rugby team at the same time. God I'm glad he no longer has anything to do with the club. An embarrassing period for the club now has another embarrassing footnote.

Good thing for Tigers is that the seasons since Borthwick has taken over and the improvements been seen aren't under suspicion. I'm also glad that the club have fully complied with the investigation and accepted the findings.

GeordieFalcon wrote:To be fair the fact they cheated and were still wholly cr@p is the laughable part....

I know, couldn't even get that right.

king_carlos wrote:Overspend figures by season:

16-17 - £147,750.00
17-18 - £64,718.05
18-19 - £30,886.69
19-20 - £73,586.32

Also a small fine for failing to declare payments in 2020/21 but even with those payments Tigers were under the cap so no overspend there.

So 2018-19 when Falcons were relegated with Tigers in 11th (10 point difference in the table though) the overspend was £30k. Embarrassing to be so abysmal and over the cap even if by a small amount that season.

For the seasons with bigger overspends we are significantly over the cap but still comfortably under the overrun limit in the old regs. The overrun limit was a ceiling at which you get a fine (referred to as an overrun tax) but no points deduction. For reference Quins (around £20k overspend from memory) and Wasps (around £40k overspend again from memory) have also been charged overrun taxes in the past.

If Tigers level of overspend was intentionally just under that limit for points deduction then it would've been Simon Cohen to be shady enough to think it was as good idea but also incompetent enough to run an absolutely dire rugby team at the same time. God I'm glad he no longer has anything to do with the club. An embarrassing period for the club now has another embarrassing footnote.

Good thing for Tigers is that the seasons since Borthwick has taken over and the improvements been seen aren't under suspicion. I'm also glad that the club have fully complied with the investigation and accepted the findings.

In stark contrast to Sarries.

Just feels a little light for me for consistent cheating.

We were over the cap by nearly £150k in a season where we started a back row:

6.Mike Fitzgerald
7.Mike Williams
8.Luke Hamilton

Jesus.

Lachlan McCaffery (a player I adored at Tigers) was frequently our best 8 that season basically through the simple virtue of looking like he actually tried.

The days of Tigers signing Maxime Mermoz as an injury joker and having to try to delude myself that it might help stop our second and back row being terrible.

'The overwhelming feeling at Leicester, and from their fans, will be of relief. With Tigers 12 points clear at the top of the table, this investigation had the potential to derail their title bid, or even relegate them, had the offences been serious enough.

But this is not a good day for England's most successful club. Tigers have been found to have systematically bypassed rules aimed at keeping the Premiership fair and competitive, and have incurred the second biggest salary cap fine in the division's history.

Tigers, miraculously, appear to have regularly overspent just below the limit that could have led to a points deduction or worse. Had they been investigated under current rules, and not those in place at the time, they'd be in big trouble.

Their reputation is significantly hit by this, and despite wholesale change in the boardroom and at coaching level since these breaches, some figures have big questions to answer.'

I do like that from BBC Leicester!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just feels a little light for me for consistent cheating.

That's why the overrun ceiling has been removed (*) in the new regs. It basically allowed clubs to overspend by relatively small amounts compared to say Sarries but not incur a points deduction, rather an overrun tax. A really dumb idea.

For reference though Sarries overspend was around £1m for two of the three seasons we know the overspend for. Rumours their undisclosed overspends for the seasons when Sarries and Bath got behind closed doors (until Sarries challenged theirs in court under competition law) were a similar level as well.

* Maybe not removed actually, need to read the new regs, but at least drastically reduced.

No 7&1/2 wrote:'The overwhelming feeling at Leicester, and from their fans, will be of relief. With Tigers 12 points clear at the top of the table, this investigation had the potential to derail their title bid, or even relegate them, had the offences been serious enough.

But this is not a good day for England's most successful club. Tigers have been found to have systematically bypassed rules aimed at keeping the Premiership fair and competitive, and have incurred the second biggest salary cap fine in the division's history.

Tigers, miraculously, appear to have regularly overspent just below the limit that could have led to a points deduction or worse. Had they been investigated under current rules, and not those in place at the time, they'd be in big trouble.

Their reputation is significantly hit by this, and despite wholesale change in the boardroom and at coaching level since these breaches, some figures have big questions to answer.'

I do like that from BBC Leicester!

Whitty has always been very good. That's no different, sums up the situation well.

First of all, I don't think there will any ramifications of significance. And in a year or so no one will remember. Without punishment it will be out of sight and out of mind, excluding a fine of a few quid.

I still think the salary cap should be a hard cap with no exceptions and total transparency. Makes the rules and compliance clear and simple. No fudging around the edges, which is what it appears Leicester's management had done. Still don't understand why this is so difficult.

No 7&1/2 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/60754388


Leicester are cheats then.

I thought we already knew it was Tigers that were cheating?

Not a good luck for Tigers at all.....4 years of proven cheating and the 2nd time they've been caught. Luckily for them they've scraped under the limit for points deductions.

I believe they'd have been hit with a deduction under the new regulations? Not 100% on this.

doctor_grey wrote:First of all, I don't think there will any ramifications of significance.  And in a year or so no one will remember.  Without punishment it will be out of sight and out of mind, excluding a fine of a few quid.

I still think the salary cap should be a hard cap with no exceptions and total transparency.  Makes the rules and compliance clear and simple.  No fudging around the edges, which is what it appears Leicester's management had done.  Still don't understand why this is so difficult.  

People still remember blood gate well, so I don't think this will be forgotten.

£320k fine will be of significance to Tigers. They aren't exactly a rich club and have had to make a fair few settlements recently, including one with the person who oversaw this mess.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/60754388


Leicester are cheats then.

I thought we already knew it was Tigers that were cheating?

Not a good luck for Tigers at all.....4 years of proven cheating and the 2nd time they've been caught. Luckily for them they've scraped under the limit for points deductions.

I believe they'd have been hit with a deduction under the new regulations? Not 100% on this.

When was the first time?

king_carlos wrote:

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/60754388


Leicester are cheats then.

I thought we already knew it was Tigers that were cheating?

Not a good luck for Tigers at all.....4 years of proven cheating and the 2nd time they've been caught. Luckily for them they've scraped under the limit for points deductions.

I believe they'd have been hit with a deduction under the new regulations? Not 100% on this.

When was the first time?

Luckily they scraped under the limit for points deduction?

They were no where near it in any of seasons.

It was by design not luck I agree.

nathan wrote:

doctor_grey wrote:First of all, I don't think there will any ramifications of significance.  And in a year or so no one will remember.  Without punishment it will be out of sight and out of mind, excluding a fine of a few quid.

I still think the salary cap should be a hard cap with no exceptions and total transparency.  Makes the rules and compliance clear and simple.  No fudging around the edges, which is what it appears Leicester's management had done.  Still don't understand why this is so difficult.  

People still remember blood gate well, so I don't think this will be forgotten.

£320k fine will be of significance to Tigers. They aren't exactly a rich club and have had to make a fair few settlements recently, including one with the person who oversaw this mess.

Maybe I said it wrong.  In a few years no one will care.  People were supporting Quins by the droves last season during their run to the Premiership title.  And they were caught live on worldwide tv.  A year or so later, I don't think anyone cared and no one holds it against the team.  Point being, I think these things have a very finite shelf life.  Even Sarries being relegated won't matter all that much in a few years, though the lessons will probably last in the minds of the other clubs ownership and management.  Tigers forking over some money will be invisible to fans (outside of reading about it) and, I think, will have no lasting impact.  

If the premiership was really serious about this, the fine would come out of their salary pool under the cap.   In other words the £320k would be paid from their salary budget and their salary cap number would be reduced by exactly that amount for a season.  If they are truly cash-strapped they would have to reduce expenses anyway.  Of course, there is no transparency, a remnant of the old amateur days, and no one knows what goes on.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It was by design not luck I agree.

I agree it was likely by design rather than luck as Adam Whitty put well. Nathan is also right that they didn't scrape under the limit, they were way under it in all 4 seasons. Saying they scraped under is either not knowing the limit or being misleading with the figures.

Also genuinely curious to hear Sarge's response to the question of when Tigers broke the cap the first time?

Sarge on a number of occasions has stated that Tigers rather than Bath were the side that broke the cap alongside Sarries in the undisclosed fines. Sarries ended up being named due to the court case. Given almost every mainstream media outlet has named Bath as the second club without Bath ever taking legal action I find it incredibly unlikely the second club weren't Bath. I've also heard nothing, either media reports or fan speculation, from anyone other than Sarge who thinks it was Tigers.

I've tried each time I've read Sarge state this to ask whether he can produce a single thing that backs it up but on each occasion (I believe this is the third if not fourth) he has subsequently stopped posting on the thread where I've asked.

Interesting that it's thus far happened again.

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It was by design not luck I agree.

I agree it was likely by design rather than luck as Adam Whitty put well. Nathan is also right that they didn't scrape under the limit, they were way under it in all 4 seasons. Saying they scraped under is either not knowing the limit or being misleading with the figures.

Also genuinely curious to hear Sarge's response to the question of when Tigers broke the cap the first time?

Sarge on a number of occasions has stated that Tigers rather than Bath were the side that broke the cap alongside Sarries in the undisclosed fines. Sarries ended up being named due to the court case. Given almost every mainstream media outlet has named Bath as the second club without Bath ever taking legal action I find it incredibly unlikely the second club weren't Bath. I've also heard nothing, either media reports or fan speculation, from anyone other than Sarge who thinks it was Tigers.

I've tried each time I've read Sarge state this to ask whether he can produce a single thing that backs it up but on each occasion (I believe this is the third if not fourth) he has subsequently stopped posting on the thread where I've asked.

Interesting that it's thus far happened again.

I've posted this a number of times KC, on different threads. The initial breach was in 2014/15, this is common knowledge is it not?

Initially it was reported that it was Saracens and Bath. Subsequently, all clubs came on record stating that they had not breached the salary cap and had not been found guilly.......all clubs bar Saracens & Leicester that is. Saracens were later named, but Tigers have managed to not be.

So.....we have this initial breach and then a subsequent 4 years. In the previous 8 years of the premiership, Tigers have breached the salary cap in 5 of them.

I'm not usually that fussed with the cap, but the high horse attitude of some of the Tigers fans (not especially on here) and that they were cheating in the season we got relegated....it grinds a little.

Tigers and Saracens should be constantly regulated for the next few years imo. They have been proven to be cheats and over a number of years, they obviously can't be trusted.

Given almost every mainstream media outlet has named Bath as the second club without Bath ever taking legal action I find it incredibly unlikely the second club weren't Bath. I've also heard nothing, either media reports or fan speculation, from anyone other than Sarge who thinks it was Tigers.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/30/bath-rugby-deny-premiership-salary-cap-breach

“In response to recent speculation, Bath Rugby would like to clarify its position for the 2014/2015 season,” the club said.

“Bath Rugby can confirm the club was within the salary cap for the 2014/15 season.

“The cap for the 2014/15 season was £4.76m before allowances and credits. Bath Rugby’s salary cap spend was £4.71m during that period.

Only 3 clubs had yet to come out......Falcons later denied being over (no shock there).

"Saracens, Leicester and Newcastle are now the remaining clubs yet to be drawn either way on the issue."

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/34683897

"Ten clubs have now denied their involvement and none have been found guilty of "breaching" the salary cap.

The salary cap for this term is £5.5m, rising to £6.5m in 2016-17 and £7m the season afterwards.

Northampton, Gloucester, London Irish, Exeter, Wasps, Harlequins, Newcastle, Sale and Worcester have all previously stated they were not among the clubs involved.

Only Saracens, Leicester and last season's relegated club London Welsh have yet to comment on the issue."

It's all circumstantial but several features of the breach point to it being deliberate and systematic but much cleverer than the Saracens one :
- It happened over several years
- It wasn't reported
- However, the amounts consistently fall a little below the level that would attract more than a fine and the "tax" laid out in the salary framework - i.e. financial rather than points penalties.

Morally, it seems much closer to Sarries than the one-off breaches that some other clubs (Quins and Wasps, from memory) have fessed up to and paid up for. Legally, it's just the right distance apart.

Oh the embarrassment of being over the cap and still that cack on the field. If they hadn't already left sacking the board would be the only option. 

I would like to know whether this was general incompetence or whether it was a considered plan. If it was a considered plan then just £30k over the cap in a season we were awful seems odd, we could have worked the system more heavily then but nearly £150k in 16-17 is to high surely for a simple error. Sadly the only person likely to really know is Simon Cohen who is both a d!ck and unlikely to comment unless someone pays him lots of cash to do so, thankfully he's no longer part of the club.

Can't agree we're in the same league as Sarries who flatly ignored the cap and built a team of superstars but we certainly deserve the fine. Wouldn't have been able to complain at a points deduction either though you'd have had to feel for Borthwick and Pinchen who are cleaning up the mess of others.

I feel for you Sam, and also for Borthwick and Pinchen - though the clean break with the previous management has at least allowed them to get on with the job untarnished.

And while I would have been delighted to see something reduce Tigers' points lead... in all honesty I can't say it was deserved, because it stayed within the range that the rules say won't attract more than a fine.

While we'll probably never know the full truth, the fact that it happened over several years and the level at which it was pitched makes it look very deliberate. In practice, it was probably enough to squeeze in 1-2 decent squad players rather than Sarries' superstars; in a well-coached side that might have been enough to make the difference between playoffs or not over an attritional season, and even in a badly coached one it could have been the difference between relegation or survival.

For context, the reason I say it's closer to Sarries than the others is a matter of quantum and (presumed) intent. Here's part of the press release on Quins' breach of the cap:

"Harlequins have been fined £6,239.50 after exceeding the Premiership's salary cap last season.
The south-west London side were £12,479 over the £7m limit, and were docked 50p per £1 overspent in accordance with competition regulations."

A one off, declared in the year it happened and an order of magnitude smaller than several of Tigers' breaches.

Yeah I suspect most clubs have had a minor overspend at some point, the club spends up to the cap and then injury or lack of form gives a development/academy player a chance and they go from outside the squad and cap to being a mainstay. Their salary the nudges the club over the cap ever so slightly. I've got not real problem with that.

Seems Tigers players image right agreements were seen as not related to the club by the club but were considered linked by the salary cap investigation. Sounds like somebody was trying to be clever, obviously not that clever because we were awful in that period.

"In practice, it was probably enough to squeeze in 1-2 decent squad players rather than Sarries' superstars;"

Average salary for a squad player is about £100k. So we may have facilitated one of those on the higher spend years. The year we overspent by £30k and Falcons went down, that probably didn't go that far.

I think it would be just for the tigers to offer us compensation of all the money we lost by being relegated....

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think it would be just for the tigers to offer us compensation of all the money we lost by being relegated....

£30k overspend explaining the ten league point difference...

A great point if it was a 1 off 30k overspend cheat year.

formerly known as Sam wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think it would be just for the tigers to offer us compensation of all the money we lost by being relegated....

£30k overspend explaining the ten league point difference...

If we underspend as we imagine, added to that 30k overspend...could be the difference of a player to make a difference over the season of 10 points.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

formerly known as Sam wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:I think it would be just for the tigers to offer us compensation of all the money we lost by being relegated....

£30k overspend explaining the ten league point difference...

If we underspend as we imagine, added to that 30k overspend...could be the difference of a player to make a difference over the season of 10 points.

Your underspend is on Falcons not Tigers.

No 7&1/2 wrote:A great point if it was a 1 off 30k overspend cheat year.

That was the year where Tigers finished 11th and Falcons 12th which is what GF is referring to. If that had been the year with the £147kish overspend then I'd perhaps see his point but that year with was a £30k over spend which is not particularly significant.

The point being Sam that you don't know straight away the gains you got from that overspend. The years previous might have meant you kept a few of your better players for an extra 10 grand a year etc. Looks what happens when you stop Ford is immediately off. So yea you do have to look at the cheating over a number 9f years and not the one off year specifically in my view.

It's also about what other clubs could have done with signings you possibly made and couldn't afford ala Billy going from wasps to saracens.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The point being Sam that you don't know straight away the gains you got from that overspend. The years previous might have meant you kept a few of your better players for an extra 10 grand a year etc. Looks what happens when you stop Ford is immediately off. So yea you do have to look at the cheating over a number 9f years and not the one off year specifically in my view.

It's also about what other clubs could have done with signings you possibly made and couldn't afford ala Billy going from wasps to saracens.

Maybe. Given the massive overhaul in players over that time during the multiple coaching changes I'm not sure. We'd have had to cut players to reduce the overspend year on year as we did.

The ins and the outs from this season testify to the reduction in costs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_2018%E2%80%9319_Premiership_Rugby_transfers

Yeah come on though. Its very fortunate that it was just cheating enough to get the advantage without risking the points deduction. It does seem an almost identical situation to Saracens.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yeah come on though. Its very fortunate that it was just cheating enough to get the advantage without risking the points deduction. It does seem an almost identical situation to Saracens.

Well not that well as I believe the limit was £350k and even in our worst year we were about £175k away from that, season we were almost relegated more than £295k. If our intention was to milk the system we didn't do that at all well.

Sgt_Pooly wrote:

king_carlos wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:It was by design not luck I agree.

I agree it was likely by design rather than luck as Adam Whitty put well. Nathan is also right that they didn't scrape under the limit, they were way under it in all 4 seasons. Saying they scraped under is either not knowing the limit or being misleading with the figures.

Also genuinely curious to hear Sarge's response to the question of when Tigers broke the cap the first time?

Sarge on a number of occasions has stated that Tigers rather than Bath were the side that broke the cap alongside Sarries in the undisclosed fines. Sarries ended up being named due to the court case. Given almost every mainstream media outlet has named Bath as the second club without Bath ever taking legal action I find it incredibly unlikely the second club weren't Bath. I've also heard nothing, either media reports or fan speculation, from anyone other than Sarge who thinks it was Tigers.

I've tried each time I've read Sarge state this to ask whether he can produce a single thing that backs it up but on each occasion (I believe this is the third if not fourth) he has subsequently stopped posting on the thread where I've asked.

Interesting that it's thus far happened again.

I've posted this a number of times KC, on different threads. The initial breach was in 2014/15, this is common knowledge is it not?

Initially it was reported that it was Saracens and Bath. Subsequently, all clubs came on record stating that they had not breached the salary cap and had not been found guilly.......all clubs bar Saracens & Leicester that is. Saracens were later named, but Tigers have managed to not be.

So.....we have this initial breach and then a subsequent 4 years. In the previous 8 years of the premiership, Tigers have breached the salary cap in 5 of them.

I'm not usually that fussed with the cap, but the high horse attitude of some of the Tigers fans (not especially on here) and that they were cheating in the season we got relegated....it grinds a little.

Tigers and Saracens should be constantly regulated for the next few years imo. They have been proven to be cheats and over a number of years, they obviously can't be trusted.

Given almost every mainstream media outlet has named Bath as the second club without Bath ever taking legal action I find it incredibly unlikely the second club weren't Bath. I've also heard nothing, either media reports or fan speculation, from anyone other than Sarge who thinks it was Tigers.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2015/oct/30/bath-rugby-deny-premiership-salary-cap-breach

“In response to recent speculation, Bath Rugby would like to clarify its position for the 2014/2015 season,” the club said.

“Bath Rugby can confirm the club was within the salary cap for the 2014/15 season.

“The cap for the 2014/15 season was £4.76m before allowances and credits. Bath Rugby’s salary cap spend was £4.71m during that period.

Only 3 clubs had yet to come out......Falcons later denied being over (no shock there).

"Saracens, Leicester and Newcastle are now the remaining clubs yet to be drawn either way on the issue."

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/34683897

"Ten clubs have now denied their involvement and none have been found guilty of "breaching" the salary cap.

The salary cap for this term is £5.5m, rising to £6.5m in 2016-17 and £7m the season afterwards.

Northampton, Gloucester, London Irish, Exeter, Wasps, Harlequins, Newcastle, Sale and Worcester have all previously stated they were not among the clubs involved.

Only Saracens, Leicester and last season's relegated club London Welsh have yet to comment on the issue."

The issue being those public denials were utterly meaningless as many pointed out at at the time. The two clubs fined back then agreed to the fines on the terms they couldn't be named. Sarries then challenged the cap in court under competition law, hence were named publicly. The second club remained unnamed as per the agreement. So clubs coming out and denying it really means nothing. Regardless of whether that second club issued a meaningless denial or not PRL weren't going to break that confidentiality agreement due to it. That's why the second club took the undisclosed fine instead of challenging it like Sarries.

When Sarries were first reported as being under investigation the second time Wray came out and said they were within the regs over and over again. It didn't make it true!

Bath were still being named in reports by major outlets as the second club from the 2015 breaches as recently as 2020 when Myners report was finally released. They are still yet to challenge it legally for some reason though.

As said I actually agree with the view of Adam Whitty that Tigers being over but within the limit for an overrun tax rather than point deduction was likely no accident. So I agree that it seems systematic and deliberate. I disagree with his wording of "just under" as the overrun limit then was £325k and Tigers biggest overspend just under £150k. So they were way under even in the season with the biggest breach. Deliberate or not a breach is a breach, it's cheating the cap and 100% deserves the fine.

Stating Tigers were the second team in 2015 on the basis of them not releasing an utterly meaningless denial holds absolutely no water though.

As with most the caps issues starting with Quins rumoured overspend in 2012 due to unexpected win bonuses, through the undisclosed fines in 2015, through the second Sarries investigation, the lack of transparency PRL operated with then made murky situations even murkier. That's the issue with the Prem back then wanting to claim it had a hard cap in name but really had a soft cap in regulation. Hence idiotic caveats such as the huge overrun limit that Tigers seem to have manipulated. Thankfully the regs and sanctions are stricter now.

Side stepping the cheating now.

Not sure if it's the prem or BT leading it but apparently there's going to be new tech put in the match day balls which will track it and be able to show pass speed, ruck speed and forward passes. Not sure on the last one how presumably matching running speed with then how quickly the ball moves in which direction afterwards. Think overall should be really good for fans as I do think for something as complicated as rugby the released stats are the bare basics in many many cases.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Side stepping the cheating now.

Not sure if it's the prem or BT leading it but apparently there's going to be new tech put in the match day balls which will track it and be able to show pass speed, ruck speed and forward passes. Not sure on the last one how presumably matching running speed with then how quickly the ball moves in which direction afterwards. Think overall should be really good for fans as I do think for something as complicated as rugby the released stats are the bare basics in many many cases.

Think I saw that was being trialled in the Premiership Cup.

Stating Tigers were the second team in 2015 on the basis of them not releasing an utterly meaningless denial holds absolutely no water though.

The utterly meaningless denial that 10 other clubs did and was requested from the fans in the forms of a petition at Tigers and at the AGM?

It's common knowledge that Tigers were the 2nd club, how do you guys not know this? I don't really get the "head in the sand" mentality, does it really matter? I's only another year of cheating to add to your other 4.

As it states in the article, Falcons were one of the last clubs to issue a statement on this. I have it on good authority that Deano obviously knew it was Tigers and he didn't want to drop them in it, it was the club that forced his hand.

5 years cheating from 8 season..........shame on you Tigers.

As a Tigers fan...

1. It's all very disappointing, doubly so because the team were so pants in that period!  Which members of that squad were managing to wrangle more than the going rate, and which management were happy to sign off on it?!  That the team could be playing below par when cheating (albeit by a small amount) suggests staggering incompetence as well as a lack of integrity.  Throughout all that period, it would have been vastly better to invest a bit more in getting the coaching team up to scratch.

2. I'd be very cross if I was a Falcons fan - I can completely understand frustration on their part.  We can't know how things would have turned out had £30/40k less been spent that year, but it surely isn't inconceivable that might have made a difference.

3. The timing of it stopping does coincide with Simon Cohen's departure, but also with tightening of regulations meaning it wasn't worth the risk.  So not clear to me that the lack of integrity is gone - just that the rules have tightened.

4. Lack of details from PRL is (as always) hugely disappointing.  Is there more info I haven't seen, or do we really have no idea who specifically was involved?  Was Cohen (or other employees) sorting this and the club sending funds via image rights trying to be clever?  Was it an enthusiastic minor share holder unwittingly causing trouble while trying to support the club (seems less likely given timing of it stopping, but not inconceivable)?  Was  it a major share holder trying to shore up an investment with selling in mind?  If there were management and/or players intentionally behaving this way, there is seemingly no personal consequence for bringing game into disrepute or equivalent (which frankly I think there ought to be in addition to the club fine - which would rightly be more impactful under current rules).

Tigers are my team, and I will still support them - but a lot of good will is damaged by this.

I would suggest that Cohen constructed the scheme but also passed it on in exchange for anonymity. He's recently tried to sue Tigers for sacking him and as the CEO would have been hands on for an agreement such as this.

Big wrote:4. Lack of details from PRL is (as always) hugely disappointing.  Is there more info I haven't seen, or do we really have no idea who specifically was involved?  Was Cohen (or other employees) sorting this and the club sending funds via image rights trying to be clever?  Was it an enthusiastic minor share holder unwittingly causing trouble while trying to support the club (seems less likely given timing of it stopping, but not inconceivable)?  Was  it a major share holder trying to shore up an investment with selling in mind?  If there were management and/or players intentionally behaving this way, there is seemingly no personal consequence for bringing game into disrepute or equivalent (which frankly I think there ought to be in addition to the club fine - which would rightly be more impactful under current rules).

Tigers are my team, and I will still support them - but a lot of good will is damaged by this.

For me, and I have raised this before, is the Premiership, ostensibly a fully professional league, is still run by people who came of age in the amateur era where everyone could get away with almost whatever they wanted.  Secretive rules, salaries, decisions, and so on are really out of step with modern sport, let alone modern business.  Tigers clearly violated the rules, but it could have been any team.  And perhaps it was, but other teams either did not self report (sic), or were better able to hide their violations.

It is almost comical that people are suggesting these may have accounting errors when any £50 accounting and payroll program would catch this.  The violations were, in my opinion, deliberate and committed with forethought.  But the system is not really a cap until real penalties are levied, such as points reductions, so it invites violations.  Splashing out a little dosh for going over is the same as the luxury tax in baseball.  And, as I said, I doubt Tigers were the only one (leaving out Sarries for the moment).

Sorry for the rant, but the Premiership is a fundamentally weak organisation which seems to me to be fighting against coming into the latter 20th century let alone the 21st.  


Now back to the Rugby....