Saracens docked 35 points

[baldpaul101]

just listened to Danny Care.

Wow, no punches pulled, nice to see a players perspective on what its meant to them to see Sarries being essentially undefeatable over a season.

[BG]

The players are guilty too. They knowingly entered into contracts with Saracens. Let’s not pussy around. People who went to speakeasies were knowingly breaking the law but chose to do it. Same with the players. They need to bear responsibility and any costs.

I noted in an article in the Torygraph that it was ED signing that might have tipped things over the edge.

But Fats it matters not, the contract is between Saracens and the player, anything outside of that is irrelevant... The responsibility is wholey on the employer, he made the offer, he issued the contract, he is bound. You call it pussying around, I call it a legal contract...wonder what wins in court.

A contract has two parties. The “buyer” needs to ensure what he is getting is legal. Caveat emptor, let the buyer beware.

I assume players can read and ask for advice. They have NOT signed up to these agreements blindly.   They could have a hard d time on that one.

Not that its anything to do with HMRC but... if a trader (a player) takes advice from an accountant how to minimise tax payments.. then finds out later that advice was bad.. its the trader that is liable... its not the accountant (Jimmy Carr).

The prices you see at supermarkets/shops aren't actually prices.. they are "an invitation to treat".. As the buyer you have to make an offer that the seller accepts.. but us sheep simply accept the price we see...

Players who signed up for the Sarries scheme can't hide behind ignorance just because a perma-tanned grey haired rich bloke said it was all above board.. the players who said "ok" are complicit.

[BG]

just listened to Danny Care.

Wow, no punches pulled, nice to see a players perspective on what its meant to them to see Sarries being essentially undefeatable over a season.

Do you have a link?

[Tervueren]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p07t6mvn

[Neils]

Interesting that they slightly skewered Care in saying all the players knew it was going on whilst saying the EAs players wouldn't have known about the machinations of the management.  Strongly suggests that most knew exactly what they were doing.

[Rifleman Harris]

I think Care says exactly that...they all knew, but knowing and proving are different things.

[Raggs]

This is a review, not an appeal. Review basically means that they need to show that the independent panel are either incompetent or biased, which won't be an easy task.

To be inline with salary cap this season, they have until around June I think, to get themselves under. So they can keep their squad, and then need to drop under closer to the end perhaps.

Breaking contracts could be interesting.

We also need to remember that if they can stop the joint investments, then that will bring down the bills too. No need to break the salary contract they signed upto when joining the club, but there may be other cotnracts involved.

[Rifleman Harris]

This is a review, not an appeal. Review basically means that they need to show that the independent panel are either incompetent or biased, which won't be an easy task.

Or that there are legally issues around the rule, I believe. I suspect that is where they will go, hence comments about anti competitive.

Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk

[backdoc]

The co-investments will simply vanish into the future and no-one will be able to prove it one way or another.

[AKWasp]

This is a review, not an appeal. Review basically means that they need to show that the independent panel are either incompetent or biased, which won't be an easy task.

Or that there are legally issues around the rule, I believe. I suspect that is where they will go, hence comments about anti competitive.

Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk

Problem with that is that they’ve signed up to and agreed rules of a salary cap. And a salary cap is designed to control wage inflation and level the playing field between the most and least wealthy teams. It encourages closer competition and prevents clubs spending themselves into extinction to get to the top

[Raggs]

This is a review, not an appeal. Review basically means that they need to show that the independent panel are either incompetent or biased, which won't be an easy task.

Or that there are legally issues around the rule, I believe. I suspect that is where they will go, hence comments about anti competitive.

Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk

They already tried anti competition, and failed.

A good summary from a lawyer:

https://twitter.com/timoconnorbl/status/1191680940701110273

[RogerE]

This is a review, not an appeal. Review basically means that they need to show that the independent panel are either incompetent or biased, which won't be an easy task.

Or that there are legally issues around the rule, I believe. I suspect that is where they will go, hence comments about anti competitive.

Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk

They already tried anti competition, and failed.

A good summary from a lawyer:

https://twitter.com/timoconnorbl/status/1191680940701110273

Also notice later tweets in that thread whereby the local council lent Sarries money for ground developments, when the Club was breaking the salary cap and they couldn't raise commercial loans, are now in the red and having to make service cuts.

[Brandnewtorugby]

"They already tried anti competition, and failed."

Oh the irony!

[welsh wasp]

Just realised that this case refers to the three seasons before they signed Daly. That means, presumably, they have added to the over-the-cap costs by recruiting him

[Raggs]

Just realised that this case refers to the three seasons before they signed Daly. That means, presumably, they have added to the over-the-cap costs by recruiting him

Potentially. Cap runs from something like Jul - Jun, so if they dump a load of players near the end of the season, they'll reduce their wages that way.

And of course, stopping the "investments" which lead them to be over the cap in the first place.