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

sydthebeat

Dog Botherer wrote: »

Report leaked

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

Shleeveens....

Every which way they could twist the rules, they did

BonnieSituation

Dog Botherer wrote: »

Report leaked

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

* heads straight to Stephen Jones' twitter account *

Squidgy Black

"In 2016-17 the overspend was more than £1.1m, in 2017-18 it was just over £98,000 and in 2018-19 it was £906,000."

The 2017/18 figure is interesting and shows how well they can probably alter their books. To drop the overspend by a million for a season and then go straight back up to a million the following season.

The Iron Giant

Squidgy Black wrote: »

"In 2016-17 the overspend was more than £1.1m, in 2017-18 it was just over £98,000 and in 2018-19 it was £906,000."

The 2017/18 figure is interesting and shows how well they can probably alter their books. To drop the overspend by a million for a season and then go straight back up to a million the following season.

Am I reading right that all of the property co-ownership and image rights parts are not included in those figures? Or are they?

Squidgy Black

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Am I reading right that all of the property co-ownership and image rights parts are not included in those figures? Or are they?

I couldn't make heads or tails of that myself. I'm assuming they're included in those figures to be honest.

stephen_n

Interested Observer wrote: »

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.

The disciplinary panel, led by Lord Dyson, accepted that Saracens' breaches of the regulations were "not deliberate" and had advised against their relegation, believing it would be a disproportionate punishment.

From reading that it’s not spin, it’s what the report says.

LeinsterDub

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Am I reading right that all of the property co-ownership and image rights parts are not included in those figures? Or are they?

Sarries claimed based on legal advised they got themselves it is ok . PRL says it is not ok and at the end of the day it only matters what PRL say. If sarries thought what they were doing was OK they'd have just asked PRL not created a 3 million pound legal shield

The Iron Giant

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Sarries claimed based on legal advised they got themselves it is ok . PRL says it is not ok and at the end of the day it only matters what PRL say. If sarries thought what they were doing was OK they'd have just asked PRL not created a 3 million pound legal shield

No, I was asking whether the "over the cap" figures in the sky news article are including all the image rights and co-ownership deal figures or if they are in addition to the "over the cap" figures.

freyners

The Itoje hospitality contract, despite being on the lower end of the scale, stinks to high heaven to me.

Getting money from an "independent" company, which is run by the daughter of the majority investor, to do hospitality for events they have no evidence of him turning up to?

Also, does that particular disclosure not give lie to the narrative of the players not being aware? If he was receiving money for events he was not it turning up to (important to note they specifically said no evidence rather than didn't attend i suppose) surely this would have stood out?

LeinsterDub

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

No, I was asking whether the "over the cap" figures in the sky news article are including all the image rights and co-ownership deal figures or if they are in addition to the "over the cap" figures.

Including

[Deleted User]

freyners wrote: »

The Itoje hospitality contract, despite being on the lower end of the scale, stinks to high heaven to me.

Getting money from an "independent" company, which is run by the daughter of the majority investor, to do hospitality for events they have no evidence of him turning up to?

Also, does that particular disclosure not give lie to the narrative of the players not being aware? If he was receiving money for events he was not it turning up to (important to note they specifically said no evidence rather than didn't attend i suppose) surely this would have stood out?

Previous rumours were of a players wife (may or may not have been a Sarries rumour)turning up for a one hour shift behind the bar and getting paid £xx,000 for the hours work. These “side deals” are common in the premiership apparently. Come to our club we’ll get your partner a job at one of the sponsors businesses.

I imagine Sarries don’t want their books opened up so people can see all the side stuff being done.

Zzippy

BonnieSituation wrote: »

* heads straight to Stephen Jones' twitter account *

You're not blocked? How is this possible??

thomond2006

Interest free loans to players.

So the money was just resting in those accounts.

The Iron Giant

Still very odd that Saracens wanted this report published but wouldn't let PLR audit their books.

Is there a chance there's more mucky payments there or is the refusal on (perhaps) privacy grounds or something else?

Because if the books lined up with the report (which they were happy to release) they surely would have been happy to show the books and they wouldn't have needed to choose relegation?

Something still doesn't add up.

sydthebeat

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Still very odd that Saracens wanted this report published but wouldn't let PLR audit their books.

Is there a chance there's more mucky payments there or is the refusal on (perhaps) privacy grounds or something else?

Because if the books lined up with the report (which they were happy to release) they surely would have been happy to show the books and they wouldn't have needed to choose relegation?

Something still doesn't add up.

according to saracens (take take as you will).... the reason the chose regulation rather than open their books was that a forensic audit of their books could take a long time, which would leave their plans in limbo to much later in the seasons...

and that choosing regulation now means they can immediately start to make plans to get within the salary cap and plan for the championship.

whether its the whole reason to choose regulation i don't know, but there is some sense to it.

Podge_irl

sydthebeat wrote: »

according to saracens (take take as you will).... the reason the chose regulation rather than open their books was that a forensic audit of their books could take a long time, which would leave their plans in limbo to much later in the seasons...

and that choosing regulation now means they can immediately start to make plans to get within the salary cap and plan for the championship.

whether its the whole reason to choose regulation i don't know, but there is some sense to it.

That is the same horse**** reasoning they used for not appealing the original punishment.

No one accepts relegation so their planning is a bit easier.

Dravokivich

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Still very odd that Saracens wanted this report published but wouldn't let PLR audit their books.

I read something somewhere yesterday where McCall wanted to just release the findings but PRL wanted further investigations. He didn't see the point in spending anything more on that (Money & Time), when the conclusions would come to the same outcomes.

The Iron Giant

Podge_irl wrote: »

That is the same horse**** reasoning they used for not appealing the original punishment.

No one accepts relegation so their planning is a bit easier.

Yeah, it's nonsense. No company in their right mind would take a more severe punishment to essentially "get it over with" where a lighter punishment is available over a longer time.

sydthebeat

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

Yeah, it's nonsense. No company in their right mind would take a more severe punishment to essentially "get it over with" where a lighter punishment is available over a longer time.

thats assuming relegation wasnt going to happen at the end of the forensic audit.

so sarries, being the ONLY body who knew exactly what was going on, chose regulation immediately rather than it being foisted on them 6 months later.

makes complete sense to me.

The Iron Giant

I wonder if they'll get the 2m parachute payment?

Dave_The_Sheep

Full report, it seems. For those who want it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/esryr6/full_saracens_salary_cap_report/

Winters

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Full report, it seems. For those who want it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/esryr6/full_saracens_salary_cap_report/

Saying the salary cap is anti competitive and contrary to EU law is hilarious.

Using the "rule is stupid" defense it seems.

Cookiemunster

Winters wrote: »

Saying the salary cap is anti competitive and contrary to EU law is hilarious.

Using the "rule is stupid" defense it seems.

Especially seeing as they're one of the 13 golden shareholders who were involved in setting up the rules and agreed to abide by them.

Podge_irl

sydthebeat wrote: »

thats assuming relegation wasnt going to happen at the end of the forensic audit.

so sarries, being the ONLY body who knew exactly what was going on, chose regulation immediately rather than it being foisted on them 6 months later.

makes complete sense to me.

Sure, in the context of admitting guilt and essentially acknowledging an appeal is pointless (as in the first case) or that an audit is unnecessary (as in this case). That's not really what they've done though - they have pretended that they are accepting punishment when they think it is possibly unwarranted because it makes things more definite. It is absolute nonsense of the highest order.

Squidgy Black

You'd have to imagine HMRC are following this closely. All of these co-investments and buying property etc are liable to benefit in kind.

molloyjh

Winters wrote: »

Saying the salary cap is anti competitive and contrary to EU law is hilarious.

Using the "rule is stupid" defense it seems.

It's so much worse than that though. They claimed that because it was illegal and restricted competition, they could ignore it. Then they were found to have not deliberately breached the cap. They actually presented a case saying that they deliberately ignored the cap based on it being illegal and were found not to have deliberately ignored the cap. Its bizarre.

thomond2006

molloyjh wrote: »

It's so much worse than that though. They claimed that because it was illegal and restricted competition, they could ignore it. Then they were found to have not deliberately breached the cap. They actually presented a case saying that they deliberately ignored the cap based on it being illegal and were found not to have deliberately ignored the cap. Its bizarre.

The speed limit shouldn't be 120 km/h on that road, so I'm perfectly entitled to drive at 150 km/h Your Honour.

aloooof

Stephen Jones is increasingly comical on this. On one hand saying "It's in the report in black and white, they didn't deliberately cheat".

https://twitter.com/stephenjones9/status/1220124931977109504

On the other hand, after the report recommends a 35 point deduction and £5m+ fine, saying "Suspiciously high points deduction".

https://twitter.com/stephenjones9/status/1220239497851494401

He seems willing to accept some parts of the report but not others.

thomond2006

He's a shill.

2020Vision

The disciplinary panel, led by Lord Dyson, accepted that Saracens' breaches of the regulations were "not deliberate" and had advised against their relegation, believing it would be a disproportionate punishment.

Amusing to read people slobbering all over the independent Dyson Report but deliberately ignoring this key finding and recommendation because it doesn't suit their agenda!

Gobsh1te central!