Saracens Salarygate: Automatic Relegation?

Pudsy33 · 23-01-2020 3:25pm

https://www.saracens.com/club-statement-from-nigel-wray/

An interesting statement from Wray. I'd be half inclined to believe him, although it all seems so haphazard and reckless.

connemara man · 23-01-2020 3:32pm

2020Vision wrote: »

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!

I didn't mean to speed down this road I was reckless, doesn't make my actions ok

irishbucsfan · 23-01-2020 3:32pm

2020Vision wrote: »

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!

No one is ignoring the key finding and recommendation?

It’s the sycophants who can’t understand that the relegation was for offenses outside the scope of the Dyson report, and agreed to by Saracens, that are the genuinely alarming ones

23-01-2020 3:50pm

connemara man wrote: »

I didn't mean to speed down this road I was reckless, doesn't make my actions ok

It's more like 'how was I to know I was speeding, I just slammed my foot down on the accelerator and closed my eyes'.

sydthebeat · 23-01-2020 3:53pm

2020Vision wrote: »

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!

the only way the inquiry could find the actions "deliberate", is if there was documentary evidence acknowledging the deals were there to subvert the salary cap.

"reckless" was the highest, most damning description they could legally find.

aloooof · 23-01-2020 3:57pm

2020Vision wrote: »

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!

The scope of the report was for the seasons 2016/17 to 2018/19 inclusive. The recommendation of the 35 point deduction and £5m+ fine relate only to those seasons.

The relegation was for continued offences this season. Maybe check your facts before shouting "agenda".

errlloyd · 23-01-2020 3:58pm

If Saracens hadn't signed Liam Williams and Elliot Daly I'd probably see their position on this. They were mostly hurt by their own players increasing in value, it is slightly different to trying to buy the game.

But then they bought Daly and Williams.

2020Vision · 23-01-2020 4:00pm

connemara man wrote: »

I didn't mean to speed down this road I was reckless, doesn't make my actions ok

Correct. But you're very unlikely to be jailed for two years for speeding.

What stinks to high heavens is that Saracens are being punished by the clubs who will benefit from their relegation. About as much chance of getting a fair trial and punishment as an accused in one of Stalin's Show Trials.

And believe me, I loathe Saracens as much as the next man, but the way that they're being dumped on by their PL rivals is utterly despicable.

aloooof · 23-01-2020 4:03pm

2020Vision wrote: »

Correct. But you're very unlikely to be jailed for two years for speeding.

What stinks to high heavens is that Saracens are being punished by the clubs who will benefit from their relegation. About as much chance of getting a fair trial and punishment as an accused in one of Stalin's Show Trials.

And believe me, I loathe Saracens as much as the next man, but the way that they're being dumped on by their PL rivals is utterly despicable.

They're exactly the clubs that should benefit from their relegation as they're the clubs that have suffered due to their recurring salary cap breaches.

irishbucsfan · 23-01-2020 4:04pm

2020Vision wrote: »

Correct. But you're very unlikely to be jailed for two years for speeding.

What stinks to high heavens is that Saracens are being punished by the clubs who will benefit from their relegation. About as much chance of getting a fair trial and punishment as an accused in one of Stalin's Show Trials.

And believe me, I loathe Saracens as much as the next man, but the way that they're being dumped on by their PL rivals is utterly despicable.

So what would be a fair punishment for any club breaking the salary cap 5 out of 7 seasons?

2020Vision · 23-01-2020 4:04pm

errlloyd wrote: »

If Saracens hadn't signed Liam Williams and Elliot Daly I'd probably see their position on this. They were mostly hurt by their own players increasing in value, it is slightly different to trying to buy the game.

But then they bought Daly and Williams.

But Williams joined Sarries in 2017?

2020Vision · 23-01-2020 4:07pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So what would be a fair punishment for any club breaking the salary cap 5 out of 7 seasons?

How about a substantial fine and a pro-rata reduction of the club's salary cap for the next 5 seasons?

Imaginative I grant you, but that's letting the punishment fit the crime.

2020Vision · 23-01-2020 4:10pm

aloooof wrote: »

They're exactly the clubs that should benefit from their relegation as they're the clubs that have suffered due to their recurring salary cap breaches.

That argument is predicated on the assumption that a Saracens team playing within the salary cap wouldn't have won the trophies that it won over the past number of years. Which is conjecture rather than fact!

23-01-2020 4:20pm

2020Vision wrote: »

Correct. But you're very unlikely to be jailed for two years for speeding.

What stinks to high heavens is that Saracens are being punished by the clubs who will benefit from their relegation. About as much chance of getting a fair trial and punishment as an accused in one of Stalin's Show Trials.

Bizarre. How you have ended up in a position where it's actually the other clubs somehow wronging Saracens I do no know.

And believe me, I loathe Saracens as much as the next man, but the way that they're being dumped on by their PL rivals is utterly despicable.

Well this is nonsense isn't it?

2020Vision wrote: »

How about a substantial fine and a pro-rata reduction of the club's salary cap for the next 5 seasons?

Imaginative I grant you, but that's letting the punishment fit the crime.

Right, their salary cap is halved next season. What do they do with all the players they have under contract?

Neil3030 · 23-01-2020 4:22pm

2020Vision wrote: »

That argument is predicated on the assumption that a Saracens team playing within the salary cap wouldn't have won the trophies that it won over the past number of years. Which is conjecture rather than fact!

No.

Fact: they cheated.

Conjecture: they would have won anyway.

The first is punishable. The second is entirely irrelevant.

molloyjh · 23-01-2020 4:26pm

Pudsy33 wrote: »

https://www.saracens.com/club-statement-from-nigel-wray/

An interesting statement from Wray. I'd be half inclined to believe him, although it all seems so haphazard and reckless.

The whole "oops, I didnt realise that providing financial assistance to someone might count as salary or benefit-in-kind" defence is either total BS or a sign of someone who is incredibly naive in terms of how professional remuneration works. Given that hes a wealthy businessman I'd find the latter somewhat improbable.

Robbo · 23-01-2020 4:37pm

Pudsy33 wrote: »

https://www.saracens.com/club-statement-from-nigel-wray/

An interesting statement from Wray. I'd be half inclined to believe him, although it all seems so haphazard and reckless.

It's with true class that Wray casually drops that an ex player was "unable to meet the instalments due to personal circumstances". But lo! The legendary benevolence of Sun King Wray was deployed until he was bailed out by his new club.

Still, when you install a lawyer as a CEO, you might as well get your money's worth and keep him busy...

fitz · 23-01-2020 4:44pm

molloyjh wrote: »

The whole "oops, I didnt realise that providing financial assistance to someone might count as salary or benefit-in-kind" defence is either total BS or a sign of someone who is incredibly naive in terms of how professional remuneration works. Given that hes a wealthy businessman I'd find the latter somewhat improbable.

Can't see how this whole thing won't result in English tax authorities raising an eyebrow and scheduling audits...I expect them find this kind of explanation improbable too.

aloooof · 23-01-2020 5:02pm

2020Vision wrote: »

That argument is predicated on the assumption that a Saracens team playing within the salary cap wouldn't have won the trophies that it won over the past number of years. Which is conjecture rather than fact!

This is nonsense. It's not conjecture to suggest the salary cap breaches did give them an advantage. And that's all that matters.

Neil3030 above is spot on.

BonnieSituation · 23-01-2020 5:04pm

Zzippy wrote: »

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

I have, somehow, managed to always resist rage-tweeting him.

Magic I know!

thomond2006 · 23-01-2020 5:29pm

2020Vision wrote: »

That argument is predicated on the assumption that a Saracens team playing within the salary cap wouldn't have won the trophies that it won over the past number of years. Which is conjecture rather than fact!

Shouldn't you be busy calling people dickheads on Twitter Jonesy?

It's quite reasonable to suggest Saracens success was helped by this. What starting players in recent years, retirements aside, have they been unable to re-sign?

prawnsambo · 23-01-2020 6:03pm

thomond2006 wrote: »

Shouldn't you be busy calling people dickheads on Twitter Jonesy?

It's quite reasonable to suggest Saracens success was helped by this. What starting players in recent years, retirements aside, have they been unable to re-sign?

This. Other clubs (like Harlequins) had to make the tough choice to offload a player after they won the Premiership because their values had gone up to the point that they couldn't pay them without breaching the cap. But somehow Saracens could keep their players on without any problems. And actually add a big name player from time to time. Won the double last year and somehow could afford Elliot Daly.

josip · 23-01-2020 6:12pm

The players would have been fully aware that these additional payments were in breach of regulations.
You'd have to be a complete thick to think otherwise.
I wonder what Eddie Jones will think of this and the players.
Whatever else, he's always struck me as being fairly principled.

Quin_Dub · 23-01-2020 6:17pm

fitz wrote: »

Can't see how this whole thing won't result in English tax authorities raising an eyebrow and scheduling audits...I expect them find this kind of explanation improbable too.

I'd be surprised if they weren't all tax compliant.

I remember a quote years ago from Jonathan Davies about before the game went pro saying "Thank God Inland Revenue didn't talk to the WRU, otherwise I'd have been out on my ear years ago". Despite Rubgy being amateur at the time he was recording all the "boot money" or appearance fees etc. with the Revenue.

Revenue don't care if your salary is above a threshold defined by a private entity , as long as you are paying your taxes they are happy.

That's not to say that somebody might not have been silly , but I'd doubt if there was anything actually "illegal" about the payments.

Neil3030 · 23-01-2020 6:19pm

josip wrote: »

The players would have been fully aware that these additional payments were in breach of regulations.
You'd have to be a complete thick to think otherwise.
I wonder what Eddie Jones will think of this and the players.
Whatever else, he's always struck me as being fairly principled.

I'd say Jones may have pragmatically liked that the spine of his team were all playing together at the same club, tbh.

George, Mako, Kruis, Itoje, Billy and Faz, with Daly coming in.

Neil3030 · 23-01-2020 6:23pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'd be surprised if they weren't all tax compliant.

I remember a quote years ago from Jonathan Davies about before the game went pro saying "Thank God Inland Revenue didn't talk to the WRU, otherwise I'd have been out on my ear years ago". Despite Rubgy being amateur at the time he was recording all the "boot money" or appearance fees etc. with the Revenue.

Revenue don't care if your salary is above a threshold defined by a private entity , as long as you are paying your taxes they are happy.

That's not to say that somebody might not have been silly , but I'd doubt if there was anything actually "illegal" about the payments.

I'd even go as far as to say that if you're going to fiddle the salary cap (private entity, as you say), you make damn sure that you are air-tight with your taxes, to keep your financial affairs out of the public eye.

prawnsambo · 23-01-2020 6:24pm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'd be surprised if they weren't all tax compliant.

I remember a quote years ago from Jonathan Davies about before the game went pro saying "Thank God Inland Revenue didn't talk to the WRU, otherwise I'd have been out on my ear years ago". Despite Rubgy being amateur at the time he was recording all the "boot money" or appearance fees etc. with the Revenue.

Revenue don't care if your salary is above a threshold defined by a private entity , as long as you are paying your taxes they are happy.

That's not to say that somebody might not have been silly , but I'd doubt if there was anything actually "illegal" about the payments.

It depends on how the payments were classed for tax purposes. For example, three directors of Saracens bought a 30% share in Itoje's image rights company for approximately £1.6 million based on a valuation by PWC. The investigation also valued it independently and found that it was overvalued by £800k or thereabouts. They attributed that to salary. HMRC might be very interested in that situation.

Clegg · 23-01-2020 6:57pm

Disappointing to see a rugby writer other than Jones drinking the Saracens koolaid. He's saying Saracens were found to have broken the cap recklessly and non-deliberately, and therefore everything's ok. Purposefully, I think, missing the point of everything.

https://twitter.com/neilfissler/status/1220121957246668805?s=19

Waffletraktor · 23-01-2020 11:23pm

errlloyd wrote: »

If Saracens hadn't signed Liam Williams and Elliot Daly I'd probably see their position on this. They were mostly hurt by their own players increasing in value, it is slightly different to trying to buy the game.

But then they bought Daly and Williams.

I remember listening to bbc 5live back in 2017? when chiefs won the title. Tony Rowe remarked on having had a message of congradulations from Wray along the lines of well done, now your players will look for 20% more.

pickarooney · 24-01-2020 6:47am

Waffletraktor wrote: »

I remember listening to bbc 5live back in 2017? when chiefs won the title. Tony Rowe remarked on having had a message of congradulations from Wray along the lines of well done, now your players will look for 20% more.

A player's value is only how much anyone is willing to pay him.

sydthebeat · 24-01-2020 9:14am

There a good synopsis article by Owen slot on today's Times.

On my phone so can't transcribe, might do it when I get into work.

John_C · 24-01-2020 9:53am

Here's something I don't understand from the report published:

It says that the overspending consisted of the property deals and Maro Itoje's image rights, that the on the books salaries were within the limit. If that's the case, why would Saracens have trouble meeting the cap this season? Can't they just agree a fair price for the players' image rights and stop doing the co-investments?

sydthebeat · 24-01-2020 9:54am

John_C wrote: »

Here's something I don't understand from the report published:

It says that the overspending consisted of the property deals and Maro Itoje's image rights, that the on the books salaries were within the limit. If that's the case, why would Saracens have trouble meeting the cap this season? Can't they just agree a fair price for the players' image rights and stop doing the co-investments?

They bought elliot Daly?

stephen_n · 24-01-2020 9:58am

John_C wrote: »

Here's something I don't understand from the report published:

It says that the overspending consisted of the property deals and Maro Itoje's image rights, that the on the books salaries were within the limit. If that's the case, why would Saracens have trouble meeting the cap this season? Can't they just agree a fair price for the players' image rights and stop doing the co-investments?

Ultimately that’s a pay cut for the players involved. Other clubs could probably afford to pay individual players more than Saracens. Especially as Marquee signings which are outside the cap. These payments are used to insure Saracens can keep a squad full of Marquee players.

Squidgy Black · 24-01-2020 10:11am

sydthebeat wrote: »

They bought elliot Daly?

And Jack Singleton. And bumped Itoje's contract up massively from his first contract which meant he was put into the marquee player spot and someone else's salary goes into the cap.

CIARAN_BOYLE · 24-01-2020 10:14am

John_C wrote: »

Here's something I don't understand from the report published:

It says that the overspending consisted of the property deals and Maro Itoje's image rights, that the on the books salaries were within the limit. If that's the case, why would Saracens have trouble meeting the cap this season? Can't they just agree a fair price for the players' image rights and stop doing the co-investments?

Maybe they've already done co-investments for this year.

sydthebeat · 24-01-2020 10:39am

sydthebeat wrote: »

There a good synopsis article by Owen slot on today's Times.

On my phone so can't transcribe, might do it when I get into work.

here we go:

The most striking element of the judgment into Saracens’ salary-cap breaches was the tone of the language used. “Flagrant and reckless failure to comply” was one phrase that leapt out of the 103 pages that were finally released yesterday.

The facts of the breaches themselves? Actually, much of it felt like a tale that we had already been told. It just made a bit more sense. The reporting and the talking over the past ten months, particularly in the Daily Mail in March and then Sky News on Wednesday night, meant that we had seen most of what was coming.

We just understand properly now why they were docked 35 points and fined £5.3 million.

Now we have seen the judgment, the question is: has the club been treated harshly? There are many answers to this: first, the Sports Resolutions panel was benevolent. It could have docked Saracens 70 points. Indeed, Premiership Rugby argued that they should have been docked 70 points but the panel elected to let the two 35-point penalties run concurrently in the same season.

Second, we now know that Saracens broke the salary-cap regulations four seasons in a row and in one other season before that. Including this season, it looks highly likely that they broke them in five of the past six seasons. This looks even more preposterous when you consider, as the judgment does, that their first misdemeanour, which was investigated in 2015, was a kind of “yellow card” offence. Even when it had been flagged up, they still didn’t fall into line.

Actually, we don’t know for sure when Saracens were ever last under the cap. And remember, they won the Premiership title in four of the past five seasons. That is a shocking distortion of England’s most prestigious rugby competition.

And third —and this is the point that is rammed home in Lord Dyson’s judgment — the club seemed to operate as though they were above the rules. Even after the yellow card, they lived on the edge and resisted repeated demands to be more forthcoming with information. The judgment records that Saracens had “not fully co-operated” and had “given piecemeal information [that was] often incomplete.”

You could call this arrogance; some still say it was a deliberate ploy to subvert the rules. Nigel Wray, the former chairman and owner, released another statement yesterday in which he acknowledged that the way that he had operated had been “ill-considered”.

It remains extraordinary that he did not give all this more consideration, especially after the yellow card, especially with so many people publicly and privately raising questions about the legality of it all. And especially with Andrew Rogers, the Premiership’s salary-cap manager knocking on the door, asking to have a look inside.

Clubs are actively encouraged to have a day-to-day relationship with Rogers in which they can share questions and ask interpretations on the intricate salary-cap regulations. That is why the present conversation about the legality of loan players is a red herring, because the clubs register with Rogers their loans (it is not possible to loan a player undercover). Saracens could have built such a relationship with Rogers but chose to hide their information rather than share it. That is why Premiership Rugby’s case against Saracens argued that some of their breaches were “concerted and deliberate”.

The independent judgment settles often for the use of the word “reckless” rather than deliberate. The definition of reckless here, as written in the regulations, is: “Failing to give any significant thought as to the risk or possibility of breaching the regulations” or “having recognised that there is some risk or possibility, nonetheless deliberately taking a risk of breaching the regulations”.

Clearly Saracens were sailing close to the wind. Again, the question is: why would you when you have already had one such firm warning?

There remains a raging anger on both sides now, but it has to be stressed that this report is not some kind of a Saracens “stitch-up”. The judgment was made and written by an independent panel appointed by Sports Resolutions with Lord Dyson at its head. Saracens’ rival clubs had absolutely no say in what Dyson et al might conclude.

The automatic relegation, that was handed down to them last weekend, is another matter altogether. That is a punishment they accepted because they were unable to comply again, and because they refused to meet certain demands, one of which was agreeing to an extraordinary forensic audit.

Here is the rub. The reality is that we will probably never know exactly the extent of the Saracens’ salary-cap breaches or how they went about them and who were the beneficiaries. They not only refused to submit to this forensic audit; they also insisted on there being no retrospective investigations into previous years.

So we know some of their transgressions but we have no idea whether we have them all. We think we have now got to the end of all this, but we certainly have never got to the bottom of it all.

Premiership Rugby was asked yesterday if, from the three seasons that the judgment covers, all the misdemeanours had been exposed or if there might be more still undiscovered. The answer was a shrug of the shoulders. No one knows.

How shocking were the contents of the judgment released yesterday? Not outrageously so, but that is because we had already become normalised to the situation.

We knew that the breaches in two of the three seasons were in the region of £1 million. We knew that Wray was doing property co-investments with players; what we didn’t know was that he had rigged them so that the players were almost completely immune from risk and that, if any party was to be out of pocket, it would be him.

And we didn’t know that Saracens were guilty of a “flagrant and reckless failure to comply”.

The recent weeks of this salary-cap scandal have been appalling for rugby. It has been desperately poorly handled and has sullied the reputation of the sport in England.

Hopefully the recent days and the publishing of the judgment yesterday brings this to an end. Hopefully Saracens’ recklessness, which distorted more than six years of domestic competition, is at an end too.

It has been a huge price for English rugby to pay. It does not seem unreasonable, now, that Saracens are picking up the bill.

Five stars who are at heart of report

Mako and Billy Vunipola
Received £450,000 from Wray. It was paid into investment company VunProp Ltd, which is majority-owned by the brothers.

Chris Ashton
Wray and another Saracens director paid 20 per cent towards a house purchased by the former wing, worth £1.4 million.

Maro Itoje
The lock was overpaid £871,000 by Wray for a 30 per cent stake in his image rights company, which was valued by an accountancy firm consulted by Premiership Rugby at £800,000 (total), not the £1.6 million estimated by Wray and Saracens. A company he owned received £250,000 from Wray and was paid £95,000 for three hospitality appearances, which there is no evidence that he attended.

Richard Wigglesworth
Wray paid £220,000 into Wiggy9 investments.

•There is no suggestion of wrongdoing on the part of the players, whose names had been removed from the report, but a leaked version obtained by Sky News connected names with specific deals.

No mention of captain Farrell
The England captain Owen Farrell has escaped any mention in the disciplinary report into Saracens’ salary-cap breaches despite having set up a financial management company with the club’s owner Nigel Wray.

Farrell is almost certainly one of the two “marquee players” whose salaries sit outside the cap and, furthermore, the company, Faz Investments Ltd, has remained dormant since it was set up in 2017, a month after the fly half signed a contract extension with the club. It has assets of only £2.

aloooof · 24-01-2020 10:54am

Brian Moore's twitter thread on the report is also very good:

https://twitter.com/brianmoore666/status/1220474113426382848

awec · 24-01-2020 11:00am

The Itoje stuff is pretty egregious and IMO he will have a hard time convincing people of his ignorance on that one.

Zzippy · 24-01-2020 11:16am

awec wrote: »

The Itoje stuff is pretty egregious and IMO he will have a hard time convincing people of his ignorance on that one.

I'm sure he's sitting up every night worried about convincing people while counting his ginormous stash of moolah...

Clegg · 24-01-2020 12:47pm

Zzippy wrote: »

I'm sure he's sitting up every night worried about convincing people while counting his ginormous stash of moolah...

It depends entirely on who's asking the questions.

The taxman may be very interested in this case.

Former Former · 24-01-2020 12:54pm

Clegg wrote: »

It depends entirely on who's asking the questions.

The taxman may be very interested in this case.

Why though? There's no implication that the money was hidden, just a question of how it was categorised for salary cap purposes.

As long as Itoje declared the full amount received in his returns, then there shouldn't be a tax issue.

24-01-2020 1:03pm

Former Former wrote: »

Why though? There's no implication that the money was hidden, just a question of how it was categorised for salary cap purposes.

As long as Itoje declared the full amount received in his returns, then there shouldn't be a tax issue.

I haven't looked at the report in any detail but there may well be income tax payable on some of those payments where there is no other consideration to offset the transfer of money.

I'd imagine the people involved were smart enough not to break two sets of 'laws' at the same time but on the other hand there may have been a desire to keep this additional remuneration as quiet as possible.

I listened to Brendan Venter on the rugby pod and he was pretty much resorting to the Chewbacca defence at one stage. His tone has softened with the latest that has come out but he's determined to protect the reputation of the club and it's achievements and it has really clouded his judgement. Fascinating listen and Hamilton whilst not going to the same lengths to defend Sarries had an interesting perspective also.

fitz · 24-01-2020 1:03pm

Former Former wrote: »

Why though? There's no implication that the money was hidden, just a question of how it was categorised for salary cap purposes.

As long as Itoje declared the full amount received in his returns, then there shouldn't be a tax issue.

I think it's more likely to result in an audit of the club than the players. If you're a party to this kind of coverage of "creative" financial dealings and think it won't attract the attention of tax authorities, I reckon you'd be falling squarely in the optimistic camp. Can't imagine Wray isn't expecting further tax compliance scrutiny on the back of this.

Former Former · 24-01-2020 1:20pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't looked at the report in any detail but there may well be income tax payable on some of those payments where there is no other consideration to offset the transfer of money.

I'd imagine the people involved were smart enough not to break two sets of 'laws' at the same time but on the other hand there may have been a desire to keep this additional remuneration as quiet as possible.

See, my take on it is that they didn't try to keep these things quiet.

If you're hiding transactions, you set up a company in the Cayman Islands whose only shareholder is an Isle of Man trust run by a lawyer in Switzerland.

In Saracens' case, they set up UK companies that anyone can see, listed the players and Wray as shareholders and even called them "VunProp", "Wiggy9" and "Faz".

Seems to me like they almost went out of their way to make it obvious what's going on, so I'd be surprised if it wasn't all above-board from a legal and taxation standpoint.

24-01-2020 1:56pm

Former Former wrote: »

See, my take on it is that they didn't try to keep these things quiet.

If you're hiding transactions, you set up a company in the Cayman Islands whose only shareholder is an Isle of Man trust run by a lawyer in Switzerland.

In Saracens' case, they set up UK companies that anyone can see, listed the players and Wray as shareholders and even called them "VunProp", "Wiggy9" and "Faz".

Seems to me like they almost went out of their way to make it obvious what's going on, so I'd be surprised if it wasn't all above-board from a legal and taxation standpoint.

Fair enough, I don't think there was intentional income tax fraud and I'm not suggesting that. The PRL deciding that these co-investments were income doesn't mean the taxman will.

The zero net risk to the players however and the absence of any consideration in return for this investment would appear to me to be income tax evasion. Obviously the club and players have been advised that it is not and their advisers know better than me, but I'd be interested to know if the publicity along with the now disclosed intention behind the payments has any sway on that. The club have gone out of their way to argue that this wasn't remuneration, they've accepted all punishment but the relevant stakeholders are still pushing that stance hard whilst refusing to open their books.

I wouldn't be surprised if there is a part 2 to this saga with potentially more serious consequences.

Trojan · 25-01-2020 7:29pm

Deleted User wrote: »

The zero net risk to the players however and the absence of any consideration in return for this investment would appear to me to be income tax evasion.

More likely tax avoidance than evasion. The former is legal, and every high net worth individual will do it.

25-01-2020 7:58pm

Trojan wrote: »

More likely tax avoidance than evasion. The former is legal, and every high net worth individual will do it.

Yes but I'm specifically talking about evasion, in the sense that the money was clearly income and potentially not declared as such.

I doubt it, it would explain them keeping the books closed though.

Richie_Rich89 · 26-01-2020 12:15am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpEaFmK3lrY

lawrencesummers · 26-01-2020 9:17am

Salaries play Quinn’s today, the team that did some of the investigative work on them and turned it over to the PRL. I wonder will the sarries players use this as motivation and decide to hammer them out the gate? Sarries don’t have the strongest team out, due to 6 nations camp presumably and quins are not as affected by international call ups. Should be an interesting game.

Saracens Salarygate: Automatic Relegation?

Comments