Saracens Salarygate: Automatic Relegation?

RobbieRuns

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Yep..

Saracens and Wray have no friends in the rest of PRL

Apply the full premiership rules , thereby keeping Saracens down in Championship for minimum of 2 years , which then loses them their seat and votes in PRL.

Once they are out of the way , vote for ring-fencing and that's that.

Did not know that being down for two seasons loses you the seat and votes in the PRL completely. I thought that it takes six seasons for that to happen. Leeds or Yorkshire Carnegie only lost all their PRL shares this year as they were down for that period. You keep losing the P shares very season, which is the way that PRL pay out the dividends from TV money and sponsorship etc. Exeter were always trying to buy more off the relegated team as they had less being a team that came up from the championship and not being in the original Premiership.

London irish actually had lots more than most as they bought Richmond and London Scottish shares when those two went bust and down a few leagues. Hence they were known as London Irish Scottish Richmond Ltd for a long period. Think that they Have dropped that Handle now and they would have had to sell or lose some shares having been relegated twice in the last few years.

I think Saracens will be given next season to get their house in order and under the cap when they return, which any relegated team will do easily. You will have any Premiership team operating on a budget of about £6-7m playing teams on a budget of about £500k average (although Ealing I understand are on a £2m budget through an external benefactor). It’s a complete non entity now the Championship and just got a lot worse today. Joke actually

Waffletraktor

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Have they? I couldn't find any source on it, the only thing I saw was a tweet from someone saying people were misunderstanding the wording of regulation but no official statement saying they would be eligible for promotion at the end of next season

I remember reading something that said the promoted team had to be compliant with salary cap for the previous 2 season. I'm sure the other clubs would love to keep them down to make it easy to pick up the younger players/not lose their young players like saries have done with Billyv/carre/offered biggar a deal as a youngster/jack singleton.

bob mcbob

RobbieRuns wrote: »

The RFU have slashed funding for the English Championship next year. The good news keeps on coming for Saracens.

Going to be hard for other clubs in that league. Think they go from £500k per club down to £288k. Not going to kill Sarries or anything, but every little helps.

Maybe not according to the Guardian, the Championship clubs are raging. They may introduce a salary cap next year so Sarries will need to get rid of all their internationals.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2020/feb/12/furious-championship-rugby-clubs-considering-breakaway-league

There seems to have been quite a large backlash against that move from the RFU. Lots of players who came through the Championship have come out and talked about how important it was for their development. It is an absolutely swingeing cut, I really would love to know their thought process. The whole point of the RFU is surely to develop the game in England and this is not a very good way of going about that.

thomond2006

The first move towards a ringfenced league?

thomond2006

thomond2006 wrote: »

The first move towards a ringfenced league?

That's what it looks like but the RFU and PRL are separate entities, I don't think they've always necessarily seen eye-to-eye and this would be a collaborative effort. Would a ringfenced league be in the best interest of the RFU?

Winters

There is a good deal of crossover and working relationships between the RFU and PRL though.

Ian Ritchie is an example of that. Who is infiltrating who..

Winters

I hadn't heard either about the relaxing of the 2 year salary cap rule for Saracens to return to the Gallagher Premiership if they win the RFU Championship in 2021.

You wonder what the future holds for Saracens and if PRL, and by extension the other club owners, want them to return to the fold. They don't own their stadium and haven't proved contrite enough yet. How deep are Wray's pockets and how much patience does he have? I assumed when he brought in Rupert and the other SA investors it was because he couldn't invest any more.

On the topic of the eligible player issue. The big question should actually be when was his work permit issue noticed first. To find that out would be to find out when a new work permit was applied for. Is he still without a work permit?

Saracens may be happy to sweep it under the carpet but if a player has been working illegally and thus uninsured that may pose other issues.

RobbieRuns

Not sure if it is just me, but isn’t the whole thing a mess. Really reflects badly on rugby in general. The business side of rugby in England in particular. No point in taking any pleasure from it either, as it just shows the game up in a very poor light.

Squidgy Black

RobbieRuns wrote: »

Not sure if it is just me, but isn’t the whole thing a mess. Really reflects badly on rugby in general. The business side of rugby in England in particular. No point in taking any pleasure from it either, as it just shows the game up in a very poor light.

Just shows the disconnect between the RFU and the leagues, and the results of having multiple governing bodies in charge of your domestic game.

molloyjh

RobbieRuns wrote: »

Not sure if it is just me, but isn’t the whole thing a mess. Really reflects badly on rugby in general. The business side of rugby in England in particular. No point in taking any pleasure from it either, as it just shows the game up in a very poor light.

I've seen this "reflects badly on rugby as a whole" thing a few times and must confess I just don't see it. One club consistently cheated for years and one leagues process to monitor and deal with it has been shown to be woefully inadequate. I'm not sure how that reflects on anything other than that team and that leagues processes.

Rigor Mortis

Rigor Mortis wrote: »

In relation to this particular rule breach, do you think there is ever an intention to cheat. Given the sanctions, it is always going to be accidental.

However, the question is, what is the precedent? The answer is to deduct points. The sole reason for this decision is impact on fans and broadcasters who have already made commitments.

What was noticeable on the Sarries forum in advance of the ruling was that no one thought that this was a witch hunt. They were, to a man, accepting that they would be kicked out for a stupid mistake.

I take the point that the proper penalty would have been tough, but not that it was the wrong one.

What were the circumstances around these cases that resulted in points deductions? For example if you selected a player who wasn't in your Euro squad at all I'd say that's a much more serious offence.

irelandrover

Melina Unsightly Apparel wrote: »

What were the circumstances around these cases that resulted in points deductions? For example if you selected a player who wasn't in your Euro squad at all I'd say that's a much more serious offence.

It depends what way you look at it. For the integrity of the competition a player not in the squad is bad.



But if the player isn't legally allowed work, are they insured? If they injured another player would they have been covered.

Podge_irl

Winters wrote: »

I hadn't heard either about the relaxing of the 2 year salary cap rule for Saracens to return to the Gallagher Premiership if they win the RFU Championship in 2021..

It is not a relaxing of the rule. They clarified that they would need to prove they were under the cap for their year in the championship and their plan for being under the cap in their first year back in the premiership. I'll see if I can find it later...

Winters

Podge_irl wrote: »

It is not a relaxing of the rule. They clarified that they would need to prove they were under the cap for their year in the championship and their plan for being under the cap in their first year back in the premiership. I'll see if I can find it later...

Which is in contradiction to the current promotion rules.

Podge_irl

Winters wrote: »

Which is in contradiction to the current promotion rules.

It is not. The certification is for the previous year, the Declaration is for the upcoming season. PRL have simply screwed up their own rules by not updating the years properly in section 15

Section 15 wrote:

15.2 A Promoted Club shall provide copies of its Declaration for the 2018-19 Salary Cap Year and
its Certification for the 2017-18 Salary Cap Year as required under Regulations 4.2 and 4.3.

Section 4.2 wrote:

Declaration for 2019-20 Salary Cap Year
Between 1 June 2019 and by no later than 4.00pm on 30 June 2019, each Club, with the
exception of the Relegated Club, will provide to the Salary Cap Manager (with a copy to the
Accountants), in respect of the 2019-20 Salary Cap Year, a copy of:
(a) a Declaration in the form set out in Schedule 2 signed on behalf of the Club by the Chief
Executive Officer and the Financial Director of the Club. The Declaration certifies the sums
which the Chairman, the Chief Executive Officer and the Financial Director, having made full
and proper enquiries, expect the Club to pay during that Salary Cap Year by way of Salary in
respect of the Club's Senior Players and Academy Players;

prawnsambo

Podge_irl wrote: »

It is not. The certification is for the previous year, the Declaration is for the upcoming season. PRL have simply screwed up their own rules by not updating the years properly in section 15

Are you sure they screwed it up? Those regulations would be for the current season (2019/20), at the start of which, the two preceding seasons for salary cap purposes would be 2017/18 and 2018/19.

Winters

Podge_irl wrote: »

It is not. The certification is for the previous year, the Declaration is for the upcoming season. PRL have simply screwed up their own rules by not updating the years properly in section 15

Are you sure?

My reading of it is that you must prove that you were abiding by the PRL salary cap rules in the season you gain promotion and the season before that.

I assumed it was to prevent front loading of contracts.

The salary cap is checked post season for all the other PRL clubs so I would assume any promoted clubs would align with that once they are promoted.

prawnsambo

Winters wrote: »

Are you sure?

My reading of it is that you must prove that you were abiding by the PRL salary cap rules in the season you gain promotion and the season before that.

I assumed it was to prevent front loading of contracts.

The salary cap is checked post season for all the other PRL clubs so I would assume any promoted clubs would align with that once they are promoted.

No. It's the two previous seasons to promotion. Currently (although it could change) proof of adherence to the salary cap comes at the end of the season concerned. So you can't prove it at the beginning.

molloyjh

Looking at that it appears Podge is right. The section 15 years just havent been updated. A Declaration for the coming year and Certification for the previous year looks to be the requirement.

Podge_irl

prawnsambo wrote: »

Are you sure they screwed it up? Those regulations would be for the current season (2019/20), at the start of which, the two preceding seasons for salary cap purposes would be 2017/18 and 2018/19.

Yes, I'm sure. Look at the definition of the Declaration in 4.2 It refers to expected salaries in the upcoming season.

molloyjh

prawnsambo wrote: »

No. It's the two previous seasons to promotion. Currently (although it could change) proof of adherence to the salary cap comes at the end of the season concerned. So you can't prove it at the beginning.

I think Podge is right. A Declaration for the coming year saying "we expect to pay X" and a Certification of the previous year saying "we did spend Y" is required. Hence the specification of a Declaration for one year and a Certification for the other. If it meant the 2 previous years then there would be 2 Certifications. They just didnt update Section 15 properly.

Yet another admin balls up.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Looking at that it appears Podge is right. The section 15 years just havent been updated. A Declaration for the coming year and Certification for the previous year looks to be the requirement.

Huh, got an error when I posted that and it didn't show up. Posted the later post and then it did.....weird.

Winters

Thanks folks.

It hardly matters much to anyone except Saracens though.

Will be interesting if the RFU Championship bring in their own salary cap for the 2020-2021 season.

Podge_irl

molloyjh wrote: »

Huh, got an error when I posted that and it didn't show up. Posted the later post and then it did.....weird.

Yeah, I keep getting the error too, but the posts are going through.

I have no objection to you pointing out that I'm correct twice though.

prawnsambo

Podge_irl wrote: »

Yes, I'm sure. Look at the definition of the Declaration in 4.2 It refers to expected salaries in the upcoming season.

I read it, but without section 4.3, I can't be sure. Rules for promoted teams are supposed to be different and it has been said that they require the two preceding seasons under the cap.

Podge_irl

4.3 describes the Certification for 2018-2019 Salary Cap Year.

4.3 Certification for 2018-19 Salary Cap Year
(a) Between 1 September 2019 and by no later than 4.00pm on 30 September 2019, each
Club will provide to the Salary Cap Manager (with a copy to the Accountants), in respect
of the 2018-19 Salary Cap Year, a copy of:
(i) a Certification in the form set out in Schedule 3, signed on behalf of each
Club by the Chairman, the Chief Executive Officer and Financial Director of
the Club;
......lots more stuff

The requirement is that the promoted club provide a certificate and a declaration so as to fulfill 4.2 and 4.3 - 4.3 describes the certificate for the previous salary cap year and 4.2 describes the declaration for the upcoming salary cap year. Section 15 clearly just has the incorrect dates, otherwise it would need to look for 2 certificates not a certificate and a declaration. A Declaration, by definition, refers to the upcoming season.




It "has been said" that they require the two previous seasons because people jumped to conclusions too quickly from reading an incorrectly updated clause.

Podge_irl

Podge_irl wrote: »

It "has been said" that they require the two previous seasons because people jumped to conclusions too quickly from reading an incorrectly updated clause.

And, admittedly, because it would be hilarious so people wanted it to be true.

prawnsambo

Podge_irl wrote: »

And, admittedly, because it would be hilarious so people wanted it to be true.

Mad that they could make such a mess of a simple search and replace.

swiwi_

molloyjh wrote: »

I've seen this "reflects badly on rugby as a whole" thing a few times and must confess I just don't see it. One club consistently cheated for years and one leagues process to monitor and deal with it has been shown to be woefully inadequate. I'm not sure how that reflects on anything other than that team and that leagues processes.

Think it shows Leinster in a terrible light tbh