nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Saracens Salarygate: Automatic Relegation?

thomond2006

It's probably worth its own thread by now.

RugbyPass reporting that Saracens could be set for automatic relegation after failing to reduce their salaries in time.

https://amp.rugbypass.com/news/saracens-stand-on-brink-of-automatic-relegation-as-nightmare-season-set-to-continue/?__twitter_impression=true

Now this is Rugbypass who are quite clickbaity so let's see if more media run with this.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

2020Vision

prawnsambo wrote: »

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...

So cheating is only cheating if the cheats win?

prawnsambo

2020Vision wrote: »

So cheating is only cheating if the cheats win?

No. Which I think i already made clear when I pointed out that they were punished for it. But there are levels of rules breaches. Or is your point that a speeding fine is the same as a murder conviction?

sydthebeat

2020Vision wrote: »

So cheating is only cheating if the cheats win?

quins didnt win that bloodgate game... yet got caught cheating and teh main actors paid very high prices

The Iron Giant

I understand all the variables about stripping the title, but does not stripping it essentially permit teams to prosper from breaking the salary cap for (in this case) five years, win titles, keep medals if they're happy to sit in the Championship for two years. I'm not arguing on the mechanics, I'm saying that the reality is that Saracens will in the end net benefit from cheating.

Similar to actual doping, one of the arguments made about the leniency of punishments is that an 18 year old can dope, get caught, spend three years out but return to active play having reaped the benefits of juicing as they'll be bigger and stronger.

prawnsambo

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

I understand all the variables about stripping the title, but does not stripping it essentially permit teams to prosper from breaking the salary cap for (in this case) five years, win titles, keep medals if they're happy to sit in the Championship for two years. I'm not arguing on the mechanics, I'm saying that the reality is that Saracens will in the end net benefit from cheating.

Similar to actual doping, one of the arguments made about the leniency of punishments is that an 18 year old can dope, get caught, spend three years out but return to active play having reaped the benefits of juicing as they'll be bigger and stronger.

This is all true. But even stripping titles, deserved as it would be, doesn't change the fact that Saracens enjoyed that winning feeling on the days when they lifted their ill-gotten trophies and nobody will get that back that perhaps should have won them at the time. Nobody is going to come out better off from this, the only thing that can be done is to punish the guilty and ensure it never happens again.

The Iron Giant

prawnsambo wrote: »

This is all true. But even stripping titles, deserved as it would be, doesn't change the fact that Saracens enjoyed that winning feeling on the days when they lifted their ill-gotten trophies and nobody will get that back that perhaps should have won them at the time. Nobody is going to come out better off from this, the only thing that can be done is to punish the guilty and ensure it never happens again.

Yeah, you're right. And Exeter etc wouldn't get any joy from belated title wins. Much like an Olympian getting an upgraded medal in the post it's a bit moot.

2020Vision

As a matter of interest, has Michelle Smith/de Bruin been stripped of her Olympic titles yet?

prawnsambo

2020Vision wrote: »

As a matter of interest, has Michelle Smith/de Bruin been stripped of her Olympic titles yet?

Afaik, no. Her adulterated samples ban came too long after the original medals were won. Open to correction on this, but that was the last I'd heard of it.

[Deleted User]

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

I understand all the variables about stripping the title, but does not stripping it essentially permit teams to prosper from breaking the salary cap for (in this case) five years, win titles, keep medals if they're happy to sit in the Championship for two years. I'm not arguing on the mechanics, I'm saying that the reality is that Saracens will in the end net benefit from cheating.

Similar to actual doping, one of the arguments made about the leniency of punishments is that an 18 year old can dope, get caught, spend three years out but return to active play having reaped the benefits of juicing as they'll be bigger and stronger.

No other team will do this now though, Saracens may struggle to survive as a club without huge monetary backing through this period

Raymond Murray

https://www.planetrugby.com/saracens-demotion-the-only-option-premiership-ceo/

A source of bitterness amid the salary cap scandal that engulfed English rugby is PRL’s refusal to publish the investigation overseen by Lord Dyson, who himself is surprised the dossier has not been released.

Childs, however, would be willing to publish but is being blocked by Saracens.

“The nuance here is that PRL have to set the rules and enforce the rules and not break the rules. The regulations say we can’t publish Dyson’s full decision,” he said.

“It would take agreement with Saracens, which they’ve withheld, for us to publish. We can’t publish it without their approval.

“If Saracens change their mind about publishing that full report I’m very minded to review my decision about publishing.

Former Former

2020Vision wrote: »

As a matter of interest, has Michelle Smith/de Bruin been stripped of her Olympic titles yet?

IRELAND'S GREATEST EVER OLYMPIAN

Cookiemunster

2020Vision wrote: »

As a matter of interest, has Michelle Smith/de Bruin been stripped of her Olympic titles yet?

Why would she be stripped of those medals? She was tested multiple times during the games and those samples have never come back positive for anything. Her ban 2 years later (after she had won more European golds which also still stand) was for allegedly tampering with a urine sample, which had no affect on her Olympic results.

[Deleted User]

Cookiemunster wrote: »

Why would she be stripped of those medals? She was tested multiple times during the games and those samples have never come back positive for anything. Her ban 2 years later (after she had won more European golds which also still stand) was for allegedly tampering with a urine sample, which had no affect on her Olympic results.

In my opinion there is not a hope in hell she was clean when she won her Olympic medals.

Proving it is a separate issues, but I don't consider them Irish Olympic medal wins at all.

Winters

Raymond Murray wrote: »

https://www.planetrugby.com/saracens-demotion-the-only-option-premiership-ceo/

A source of bitterness amid the salary cap scandal that engulfed English rugby is PRL’s refusal to publish the investigation overseen by Lord Dyson, who himself is surprised the dossier has not been released.

Childs, however, would be willing to publish but is being blocked by Saracens.

“The nuance here is that PRL have to set the rules and enforce the rules and not break the rules. The regulations say we can’t publish Dyson’s full decision,” he said.

“It would take agreement with Saracens, which they’ve withheld, for us to publish. We can’t publish it without their approval.

“If Saracens change their mind about publishing that full report I’m very minded to review my decision about publishing.

Now they say they want it published.

"To confirm, we are keen for the report to be published in full, and I made PRL aware of this earlier today. It will provide much needed context and clarity."

https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2020/0122/1110190-sarries-want-report-published-for-context-clarity/

Squidgy Black

Sarries executives would make great politicians I'd have to say.

Clegg

It was mentioned a few pages ago that the signing of Elliot Daly is the straw that broke the camels back for Saracens and led to the other clubs clubs revolting. But it should also be mentioned that even after Saracens were deducted 35 points for cap violation they were also reportedly the favourites to sign Jonny May, one of the best wings in the world. The club has never shown any contrition for their acts. They get what they deserve from this.

The Iron Giant

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Sarries executives would make great politicians I'd have to say.

2020Vision

Winters wrote: »

Now they say they want it published.

Comment from The Times website on the Saracen's affair:

I have just received an email from the new Chairman of Saracens who happens to be a partner in a large respectable law firm. Amongst other things in the email, Neil Golding says....

"With regards to the publication of the disciplinary panel's full report, I am surprised by the suggestion that Saracens are objecting to the publication of the report. Since my appointment on 9th January, I have spent considerable time in discussions with PRL and nobody has asked me what my position is on the matter. To confirm, we are keen for the report to be published in full and I made PRL aware of this earlier today. It will provide much needed context and clarity".

I wonder who was telling the media that Saracens didn't want the report published?

Dave_The_Sheep

This will be interesting, if nothing else. Wonder if which of PRL or Saracens will come out of it looking worst (compared to what we've seen so far I mean).

The Iron Giant

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

This will be interesting, if nothing else. Wonder if which of PRL or Saracens will come out of it looking worst (compared to what we've seen so far I mean).

Saracens. The PRL machine is being back by every other stakeholder in the league so they'll rally behind it from a PR perspective.

Winters

"With regards to the publication of the disciplinary panel's full report, I am surprised by the suggestion that Saracens are objecting to the publication of the report. Since my appointment on 9th January, I have spent considerable time in discussions with PRL and nobody has asked me what my position is on the matter.

"Premiership Rugby welcomes Saracens' decision to withdraw its previous objection to publication of Lord Dyson's decision," a spokesperson said.

"These objections were stated in the strongest terms and in writing on behalf of the club by its lawyers.

I suspect that it was Wray that objected.

molloyjh

I have found myself wondering a bit over the last week just how much of the decision to part ways with Saracens was Wrays and how much it was encouraged internally. As soon as he stepped away as CEO at the start of the year the narrative changed on their part. Part of that was obviously due to the impending revelations, but it was still a marked change.

lawrencesummers

When sarries get relegated what’s the bets that scrapping relegation will be top
Of the agenda again next season.

Former Former

lawrencesummers wrote: »

When sarries get relegated what’s the bets that scrapping relegation will be top
Of the agenda again next season.

Not very good.

Saracens would have to vote for it

Quin_Dub

lawrencesummers wrote: »

When sarries get relegated what’s the bets that scrapping relegation will be top
Of the agenda again next season.

Former Former wrote: »

Not very good.

Saracens would have to vote for it

They'll just wait until the following year..

Current rules of Promotion require the submission of 2 years of "clean" books before you can be promoted.

So unless they change the rules (and I can't see anyone doing Saracens any favours there), Saracens are down in the Championship for at least 2 seasons , and that assumes that they can get their house in order before the start of next season, if not then it could be 3 seasons.

Another rule is that shareholders in the PRL have to sell their shares if they are outside the league for 2 years. Once their shares are gone , they no longer have a vote.

Bottom line - Under the current rules , this could very much be the end of Saracens.

OldRio

So it looks like this report is going to be published after all.

lawrencesummers

[HTML][/HTML]

Former Former wrote: »

Not very good.

Saracens would have to vote for it

You can’t vote if your don’t exist

Bazzo

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Another rule is that shareholders in the PRL have to sell their shares if they are outside the league for 2 years. Once their shares are gone , they no longer have a vote.

Didn't Bristol remain shareholders despite being in the championship for years?

Quin_Dub

Bazzo wrote: »

Didn't Bristol remain shareholders despite being in the championship for years?

Yes , and then they pulled the ladder up behind them..

Dog Botherer

Report leaked

https://news.sky.com/story/revealed-how-saracens-broke-rugbys-salary-cap-rules-11915269