Saracens Salarygate: Automatic Relegation?

lawrencesummers

Dravokivich wrote: »

Their's been a change of head coach, who wants to focus on developing a team beyond the next 8 weeks. I expected rob to be in the periphery as an experienced player, but I'm not surprised to find he wasnt listed. And its not for a lack of ability as a player. It's just theres nothing more he can give the team after the 6n.

The mods around here would want to make up their minds on whats allowed and what’s not.
There was a post which now appears to have been deleted warning against further discussion on topics unrelated to Saracens as the contractual situation of players in the UK had developed into one about the contracts of Irish players which brought about the warning.

prawnsambo

From the Times today:

Rival clubs were feeding information to Premier Rugby about Saracens’ suspected breaches of the salary cap, helping to put in place the investigation that resulted in the English and European champions being relegated.

Harlequins were one of the clubs that did their own investigations and compiled what The Times has been told was a “huge dossier”. The information was then passed on to Andrew Rogers, the Premier Rugby (PRL) salary cap manager.

The south west London club were working on their dossier towards the end of 2018, which is when PRL began its investigation. Harlequins started searching for information through Companies House, unearthing information about the network of co-investments that Nigel Wray, the then Saracens chairman and owner, had entered into with some of his players.

Harlequins also shared details about alleged property ownership in north London and the St Albans area and about farm ownership in South Africa.

Other clubs were also passing information to Rogers, The Times understands. It was felt that his one-man department was understaffed and could do with all the help he could get.

Interested Observer

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

They need to strip them of their titles won in salary cap breaching years. Bewildering that they haven't done that yet.

I don't think it's one of the sanctions available to be handed down.

aloooof

prawnsambo wrote: »

This appears to b the definitive answer to your question. https://twitter.com/AndyGoode10/status/1219751104256315397?s=20

This bit from Childs makes me laugh:

This is the result of 3 years of salary cap breaches and uncertainty over compliance for this year. We needed to take quick and decisive action.

Massive question marks over how this is policed need to be asked as well. A club shouldn't be able to be in breach for one year without penalty. How Sarries got to 3+ years before being penalised is farcical.

aloooof

Interested Observer wrote: »

I don't think it's one of the sanctions available to be handed down.

It was mentioned on the Baz & Andrew podcast that they offered them 2 choices:
1. Open your books for a forensic audit and be stripped of your titles or
2. Relegation.

Saracens chose the latter.

Interested Observer

aloooof wrote: »

It was mentioned on the Baz & Andrew podcast that they offered them 2 choices:
1. Open your books for a forensic audit and be stripped of your titles or
2. Relegation.

Saracens chose the latter.

This information came from Tony Rowe, I don't think he mentioned anything about being stripped of their titles. And I really don't think anyone would like to see them stripped of their titles more than Tony Rowe.

https://twitter.com/chjones9/status/1218621673856995328

prawnsambo

aloooof wrote: »

This bit from Childs makes me laugh:

Massive question marks over how this is policed need to be asked as well. A club shouldn't be able to be in breach for one year without penalty. How Sarries got to 3+ years before being penalised is farcical.

I'd say it's due to a number of factors. Firstly, according to that article, it's just one guy in PRL doing the policing. That's just nuts unless they're all compliant. The second issue imo, is that the checks are done at the end of the season. That gives any club with stuff to hide, plenty of time to hide it. They should change that to 'any time'. A bit like drug testing, the cap manager can turn up at your doorstep and ask to see the books.

And finally, the issue of income, not just off the books, but outside the country makes it extremely difficult to police. Like looking for a needle (that may or may not exist) in a haystack. Even now, I've no clue as to how you can police that.

Interested Observer

The fact they have one person there to police all the clubs is a fair old sign that they haven't taken it seriously up to this point. How is one person supposed to keep on top of 12-14 clubs, particularly when clubs will try and obfuscate payments like Saracens have done here?

I would have thought this would have dragged out enormously too if Saracens had appealed or fought the sanctions.

Former Former

Surely the RFU have no power either to strip them of titles or to deduct points, since they don't run the Premiership.

A ban for certain people and a fine would seem to be their options.

thomond2006

prawnsambo wrote: »

From the Times today:

Glorious saltiness.

prawnsambo

Interested Observer wrote: »

The fact they have one person there to police all the clubs is a fair old sign that they haven't taken it seriously up to this point. How is one person supposed to keep on top of 12-14 clubs, particularly when clubs will try and obfuscate payments like Saracens have done here?

I would have thought this would have dragged out enormously too if Saracens had appealed or fought the sanctions.

It seems that it would have been a double-edged sword if Saracens had fought it. They'd have had to open up their books to prove their case and clearly they couldn't do that.

Former Former wrote: »

Surely the RFU have no power either to strip them of titles or to deduct points, since they don't run the Premiership.

A ban for certain people and a fine would seem to be their options.

Game into disrepute kind of sanctions I suppose.

prawnsambo

thomond2006 wrote: »

Glorious saltiness.

Hell hath no fury like an agent scorned :

Some of the information that the clubs passed to PRL came second-hand through player agents. At the time, Saracens had a history of cutting agents out of their players’ contract deals, which enraged the agents, who were then happy to pass on their own knowledge of how Saracens were doing their business.

Also wrt the chance of Saracens finishing in the top four this season:

Childs also said yesterday that in the unlikely event that Saracens overcome their 35-point deduction to finish in fourth — they are 29 points behind fourth-placed Sale with 14 games to go — they would not be allowed to compete in the play-offs.

“The current thinking is that if they hit top four, they won’t be participating in the play-offs,” Childs said. “The fifth-placed club will take part instead. We are still working through the final details. This is a club that for four years in a row has failed to demonstrate its compliance with the league’s regulations.”

Edit: Funny that the Times broke the story and are continuing to lead on new snippets whilst Stephen Jones sits there churning out Pravda articles in praise of the glorious leader and his wonderful bunch of merry men.

Interested Observer

They should have been given another 100 point penalty or something to stop any chance of them making the playoffs and guaranteeing they went down. The fact they're still playing in the league is a bit farcical now.

2020Vision

prawnsambo wrote: »

From the Times today:

Makes me secretly hope that Saracens will hit Harlequins for fifty at the Stoop next Sunday!

AdamD

2020Vision wrote: »

Makes me secretly hope that Saracens will hit Harlequins for fifty at the Stoop next Sunday!

Why?

Exclamation Marc

Interested Observer wrote: »

They should have been given another 100 point penalty or something to stop any chance of them making the playoffs and guaranteeing they went down. The fact they're still playing in the league is a bit farcical now.

Matt Williams was saying that an Australian team guilty of a similar offence were sanctioned by way of them being awarded zero points for every game regardless of result. Seems like an apt punishment.

And on the stripping of titles, I heard alright that they couldn't do it but its outrageous that a governing body don't have autonomy to strip teams of titles when found guilty of an offence that blatantly affects the title race. The IFF stripped Juventus of some of their titles after the calciopoli scandal. Premiership Rugby should be able to the same.

2020Vision

AdamD wrote: »

Why?

Ever hear of bloodgate?

stephen_n

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Matt Williams was saying that an Australian team guilty of a similar offence were sanctioned by way of them being awarded zero points for every game regardless of result. Seems like an apt punishment.

And on the stripping of titles, I heard alright that they couldn't do it but its outrageous that a governing body don't have autonomy to strip teams of titles when found guilty of an offence that blatantly affects the title race. The IFF stripped Juventus of some of their titles after the calciopoli scandal. Premiership Rugby should be able to the same.

Saracens haven’t admitted guilt in any of this. They claim it was “an honest mistake Guv”. Stripping the titles might require proving they deliberately broke the rules. If Jones is right, the report stopped short of saying it was deliberate. Since Saracens are withholding the report it’s hard to know how strong the case for stripping them is.

Quin_Dub

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Matt Williams was saying that an Australian team guilty of a similar offence were sanctioned by way of them being awarded zero points for every game regardless of result. Seems like an apt punishment.

And on the stripping of titles, I heard alright that they couldn't do it but its outrageous that a governing body don't have autonomy to strip teams of titles when found guilty of an offence that blatantly affects the title race. The IFF stripped Juventus of some of their titles after the calciopoli scandal. Premiership Rugby should be able to the same.

In terms of stripping them of the titles - How would that work?

I assume that they only viable way would be to void the titles for those seasons as you couldn't reasonably give it to whoever they beat in the final as those that were beaten in a semi (or even those that missed out on a playoff spot) could reasonably say they could have won as well.

I'm guessing that having 3 or 4 years of "NULL" in the winners column would be a bit much for the Alickadoos to swallow.

prawnsambo

2020Vision wrote: »

Ever hear of bloodgate?

Yes. For which the people involved paid a high price. And which, in any case made no difference to the result of the match. Saracens on the other hand...

The context of all this is fascinating.

It seems that the clubs came together early in the 2010's and agreed to adhere fully to the salary cap and keep it as a part of premiership rugby to prevent the race to the bottom which was already placing clubs in financial jeopardy.

All the clubs bar Saracens bought into this and not only did Saracens ignore it, they went all out and paid outlandish money to retain and attain the best players in the UK and the best imports. The cynic in me would be of the opinion that Wray on seeing that the other clubs were cutting costs instead pumped more cash into Sarries to ensure the titles he desired.

Other clubs were aware of this from early on and no doubt made issue of it, whilst Saracens denied everything and continued to flaunt the cap whilst garnering title after title.

Then an investigation started, aided by the clubs in certain instances and instead of scaling back Sarries increased their wage bill further giving two fingers to the rest of the league.

The Daly signing really broke the camels back. Sarries were on the cusp of being sanctioned and added the starting England full back to their wage bill. Despite being sanctioned, their response was largely 'we've done nothing wrong' and they showed no sign of downsizing the squad. Any rational actor would presume from their statements and lack of action that they had no intention of adhering to the cap. As far as Wray is concerned it simply doesn't apply to Saracens.

It really must be galling for the other clubs. You can see why a seemingly straight shooter like Rob Baxter is so incensed. The level of entitlement Sarries have acted with is astonishing.

stephen_n

stephen_n wrote: »

the report stopped short of saying it was deliberate

One of the podcasts I've listened to on this suggested that the investigation wasn't focused on motive, more whether the cap was breached or not and whether alternative methods of payment fell under the cap.

I think an investigation of motive would have no difficulty proving that this was cap evasion.

Exclamation Marc

stephen_n wrote: »

Saracens haven’t admitted guilt in any of this. They claim it was “an honest mistake Guv”. Stripping the titles might require proving they deliberately broke the rules. If Jones is right, the report stopped short of saying it was deliberate. Since Saracens are withholding the report it’s hard to know how strong the case for stripping them is.

I don't buy it from the Premiership. Its not good enough. They're the governing body and should have the teeth. Threaten to strip the titles and request Saracens demonstrate compliance and if they don't, strip them. This is a cop out. Whether they deliberately broke them or not is irrelevant, they broke the rules, simple as. This essentially says that you can prosper for four years and retain your accomplishments if you'll take two years in the swanny afterwards.

Quin_Dub wrote: »

In terms of stripping them of the titles - How would that work?

I assume that they only viable way would be to void the titles for those seasons as you couldn't reasonably give it to whoever they beat in the final as those that were beaten in a semi (or even those that missed out on a playoff spot) could reasonably say they could have won as well.

I'm guessing that having 3 or 4 years of "NULL" in the winners column would be a bit much for the Alickadoos to swallow.

Yep. Void them. Like the 1999-2005 Tour de France. No team will take pride in backdated trophies.

Eod100

2020Vision wrote: »

Ever hear of bloodgate?

Nothing like the scale of Salarygate tbf! And nearly 11 years ago at this stage

prawnsambo

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

I don't buy it from the Premiership. Its not good enough. They're the governing body and should have the teeth. Threaten to strip the titles and request Saracens demonstrate compliance and if they don't, strip them. This is a cop out. Whether they deliberately broke them or not is irrelevant, they broke the rules, simple as. This essentially says that you can prosper for four years and retain your accomplishments if you'll take two years in the swanny afterwards.

I can understand PRL's stance tbh. You can't breach your own rules in sanctioning one of your own members for a breach of the same rules. You're walking straight into a court case that you'll lose for starters.

stephen_n

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the podcasts I've listened to on this suggested that the investigation wasn't focused on motive, more whether the cap was breached or not and whether alternative methods of payment fell under the cap.

I think an investigation of motive would have no difficulty proving that this was cap evasion.

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

I don't buy it from the Premiership. Its not good enough. They're the governing body and should have the teeth. Threaten to strip the titles and request Saracens demonstrate compliance and if they don't, strip them. This is a cop out. Whether they deliberately broke them or not is irrelevant, they broke the rules, simple as. This essentially says that you can prosper for four years and retain your accomplishments if you'll take two years in the swanny afterwards.



Yep. Void them. Like the 1999-2005 Tour de France. No team will take pride in backdated trophies.

I think what’s right and what’s financially achievable are two different things. Like the ARU with Folau, the cost of proving it and having it challenged in court may be daunting.

Podge_irl

Eod100 wrote: »

Nothing like the scale of Salarygate tbf! And nearly 11 years ago at this stage

The fallout would have been a lot worse had they won the game mind.

ScrubsfanChris

https://twitter.com/SportsJOEdotie/status/1219947664848097281

Interested Observer

stephen_n wrote: »

Saracens haven’t admitted guilt in any of this. They claim it was “an honest mistake Guv”. Stripping the titles might require proving they deliberately broke the rules. If Jones is right, the report stopped short of saying it was deliberate. Since Saracens are withholding the report it’s hard to know how strong the case for stripping them is.

Is this Stephen Jones you're talking about? He's spinning so hard on this. I'm going from memory but apparently there are 4 scales of breach which are accidental, negligent, reckless and deliberate or something. Saracens were found to be reckless. To be found deliberate they would have basically needed a signed note from Wray saying 'We are about to breach the cap and we're well aware of it. Kind regards, Nigel'. Reckless and deliberate breaches basically have the exact same sanctions available.

Former Former

prawnsambo wrote: »

I can understand PRL's stance tbh. You can't breach your own rules in sanctioning one of your own members for a breach of the same rules. You're walking straight into a court case that you'll lose for starters.

Especially since Saracens accepted the punishment handed down to them (on both occasions).

If Sarries had fought it, there might have been scope to strengthen the sanctions, but as it is we're done. Unless more offences are uncovered of course.