Glaws CE insists Saracens should feel 'full force of points deduction'

[Vespula Vulgaris]

I don't think the other PRL clubs are going to accept that this time though

I very much hpe they don't. This has massively damaged the reputation of rugby and will have a knock on effect on all the clubs regardless of whether they too were cheating.

[W2APS]

Agreed, it has made a farce of the salary cap.

Sent from my TA-1012 using Tapatalk

[mike909]

I can't understand what additional investigating needs to take place as its in black and white at Companies House.

The difficulty is discerning whether these joint ventures constitute extra income (now or delayed) to the players involved and that is somehow linked to the club.

Well, my view is that if such investments are only available to Sarries players then they break the spirit of the cap at least and certainly could be construed as extra income at worst.

My view lines up with "Investopedia" which notes

Investment Income and Taxes
While it is not always the case, the majority of investment income is subject to a preferred level of taxation once the funds are withdrawn. The associated tax rate is based on the form of investment producing the income and other aspects of an individual taxpayer’s situation.

So any growth in such an investment or if the investment is subject to withdrawal - then that is "income" just not salary income - its investment income and subject to tax and as such, for me, as only available to Sarries players, should be deemed part of the cap on the money receivable by players.

The agreement may not cover all forms of income - but if the investments are  - as it seems  - designed to get money to players (Sarries only) in a way not covered by agreements - it doesn't have much merit and may explain how such a proportion of the last Lions team can be afforded?

[andermt]

I can't understand what additional investigating needs to take place as its in black and white at Companies House.

The difficulty is discerning whether these joint ventures constitute extra income (now or delayed) to the players involved and that is somehow linked to the club.

Well, my view is that if such investments are only available to Sarries players then they break the spirit of the cap at least and certainly could be construed as extra income at worst.

My view lines up with "Investopedia" which notes

Investment Income and Taxes
While it is not always the case, the majority of investment income is subject to a preferred level of taxation once the funds are withdrawn. The associated tax rate is based on the form of investment producing the income and other aspects of an individual taxpayer’s situation.

So any growth in such an investment or if the investment is subject to withdrawal - then that is "income" just not salary income - its investment income and subject to tax and as such, for me, as only available to Sarries players, should be deemed part of the cap on the money receivable by players.

The agreement may not cover all forms of income - but if the investments are  - as it seems  - designed to get money to players (Sarries only) in a way not covered by agreements - it doesn't have much merit and may explain how such a proportion of the last Lions team can be afforded?

The salary cap regulations has a line which basically says that any earnings achieved (from whatever source) due to being a player at the specific  club is to be included in the cap.

[BG]

A lot of players will earn money outside the confines of their own club which is fine and that income shouldn't be part of the salary cap. In my eyes what Nigel Wray has done is blatantly provided extra income or wealth to some of his high value players and this is as a direct result of Wray and the players being linked to Sarries.

I'm sure most of the other club DoR's and owners see it the same way and PRL (the management etc) will be opening themselves up to being ousted by the 12 other clubs who may feel that their interests are being disregarded to suit the ambitions of the best team in Europe.

And then we bring in CVC.. lurking in the background who probably don't want bad publicity surrounding one of their best performers. People always raise the comparison with CVC being the major stakeholders of F1 (fomerly). The same comparison would be Ferrari to have been seemingly caught cheating (bending the rules) but the powers that be not really wanting to rock the boat with Ferrari for fear of hurting their product

[baldpaul101]

People always raise the comparison with CVC being the major stakeholders of F1 (formerly). The same comparison would be Ferrari to have been seemingly caught cheating (bending the rules) but the powers that be not really wanting to rock the boat with Ferrari for fear of hurting their product

But isn't that exactly what happened with the MacLaren spygate scandal in 2007 when CVC owned F1? that resulted in MacLaren being banned form the constructors championship for a year & fined $100 million.

[andermt]

People always raise the comparison with CVC being the major stakeholders of F1 (formerly). The same comparison would be Ferrari to have been seemingly caught cheating (bending the rules) but the powers that be not really wanting to rock the boat with Ferrari for fear of hurting their product

But isn't that exactly what happened with the MacLaren spygate scandal in 2007 when CVC owned F1? that resulted in MacLaren being banned form the constructors championship for a year & fined $100 million.

Rumour has it the fine was never paid.........

Also that was not CVC, that was the FIA.

[baldpaul101]

Also that was not CVC, that was the FIA.

Err....yes.
But no one is suggesting that CVC might fine Sarries, the RFU/PRL would have to do that. Just like the FIA fined MacLaren

The point was, if CVC are the "owners" of the Prem (I know that not strictly true) the inference was they wouldn't like one of their star assets being penalised. I simply pointed out that when they owned F1, they allowed exactly that to happen.

FWIW

[InBetweenWasp]

And then we bring in CVC.. lurking in the background who probably don't want bad publicity surrounding one of their best performers. People always raise the comparison with CVC being the major stakeholders of F1 (fomerly). The same comparison would be Ferrari to have been seemingly caught cheating (bending the rules) but the powers that be not really wanting to rock the boat with Ferrari for fear of hurting their product

They might be a top performer, but not necessarily a top brand which is probably more important to CVC in terms of growing the business.  You’d argue that success will grow the brand alone, but it doesn’t seem that way given the relative lack of growth with Saracens despite their repeated successes over the past 3-4 season.

[BG]

And then we bring in CVC.. lurking in the background who probably don't want bad publicity surrounding one of their best performers. People always raise the comparison with CVC being the major stakeholders of F1 (fomerly). The same comparison would be Ferrari to have been seemingly caught cheating (bending the rules) but the powers that be not really wanting to rock the boat with Ferrari for fear of hurting their product

They might be a top performer, but not necessarily a top brand which is probably more important to CVC in terms of growing the business.  You’d argue that success will grow the brand alone, but it doesn’t seem that way given the relative lack of growth with Saracens despite their repeated successes over the past 3-4 season.

Would the F1 equivalent of Sarries be Red Bull then? Following this comparison on (apologies for anyone that doesn't follow F1).. would Tigers be the equivalent of Williams.. stalwarts in the 90's and 2000's but have somehow lost their way.

Wasps might be akin to McLaren.. had a sticky recent patch but getting back to their feet.

Bath might be Ferrari.. lots of resources and money but can't quite get things to click.

[baldpaul101]

so would Sarries be Mercedes?

[mike909]

The salary cap regulations has a line which basically says that any earnings achieved (from whatever source) due to being a player at the specific  club is to be included in the cap.

Time for someone to do some adding up then?

[andermt]

The salary cap regulations has a line which basically says that any earnings achieved (from whatever source) due to being a player at the specific  club is to be included in the cap.

Time for someone to do some adding up then?

Went digging in the document as it was lunchtime.

Actual line (page 40) under the Amounts that Constitute salary section is:
any payment or benefit in kind which the Player would not have received if it were
not for his involvement with a Club

This is also quite a good one (p38)
any loan pursuant to which the Player or any Connected Party of the Player is not
obliged to repay the full sum advance in the Salary Cap Year in which the loan is made;

The link to the full 2018/19 document.
https://d2cx26qpfwuhvu.cloudfront.net/premier/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/03161651/Salary-Cap-Regulations-2018-19.pdf

[mike909]

Pretty clear then. Clearer than local government finance rules I used to "police" 

[King Prawn Phuna]

The salary cap regulations has a line which basically says that any earnings achieved (from whatever source) due to being a player at the specific  club is to be included in the cap.

Time for someone to do some adding up then?

I think you miss the point.  For example ...If they are both 50% shareholders in the development company.  Player X invests £500k Director Y invests £500k.  They  buy and development a site...sell the units and make say £500k profit...they both walk away with £250k each.  No payment to the player at all! The issue is that Player X has no experience or sufficient capital to do the thing himself and the additional £250k in his pocket would not have happened.  There is no payment to player...just business experience and a share of the financial capital.

Went digging in the document as it was lunchtime.

Actual line (page 40) under the Amounts that Constitute salary section is:
any payment or benefit in kind which the Player would not have received if it were
not for his involvement with a Club

This is also quite a good one (p38)
any loan pursuant to which the Player or any Connected Party of the Player is not
obliged to repay the full sum advance in the Salary Cap Year in which the loan is made;

The link to the full 2018/19 document.
https://d2cx26qpfwuhvu.cloudfront.net/premier/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/03161651/Salary-Cap-Regulations-2018-19.pdf