Saracens docked 35 points

[Tervueren]

ED now won't get whatever extras he might have been promised to compensate for the pay cut he took for joining

[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

They already tried anti competition, and failed.

A good summary from a lawyer:

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

According to the Guardian (who is very sympathetic and claim Billy V is a product of their academy - make of that what you will) this will be their defence, going up to the high court and beyond if necessary.  The Guardian also feel they have a good case on the 'process argument' as they claim that the Salary Cap rules text is 'sloppy'.  I don't think I buy the latter, I can imagine them trying the former.  If they win on that basis the future will be very interesting.

The article's thrust is basically that as they produce so many players from their academy (including BV) then it isn't surprising that they will break the cap in order to hold on to them, that Saracens have better player welfare than other clubs and that in 2015 and 2010 Saracens were among a group of teams that were investigated and like Wasps in 2000 players will play for less for them than anyone else...even going as far as to say the squad would remain intact even if they were relegated!  I'm not sure I agree with this interpretation of the facts!

Paul Rees is the correspondent. I don't know anything about him. I think I would be more reliant on David Conn in this case.

[Neils]

Isnt his other half employed by them though and doesn't he already have a coffee business so who knows where the funding came from?

[Rifleman Harris]

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.

But won't they have already paid a majority of the wages anyway?  It may be too late close to the end of the season.  I suspect they will change their co-investments into another vehicle to make sure everything is sweet.  If they stop the co-investments, I presume they will be inside the cap.

[Hymenoptera]

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.
[/quote]
With respect thats utter rubbish. Remove assumption from your argument and remain on fact. Go test the theory, go to you employer tomorrow and ask them to open their books, including salaries of all your colleagues, because you want to calculate their operational costs versus the contract you have in place...see what they say.

[Neils]

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.

With respect thats utter rubbish. Remove assumption from your argument and remain on fact. Go test the theory, go to you employer tomorrow and ask them to open their books, including salaries of all your colleagues, because you want to calculate their operational costs versus the contract you have in place...see what they say.
[/quote]

Sorry but the number of players coaches coming out and saying they all knew it was happening suggests the players did know what was going on. Whilst accepting that, apparently,  the EAs don't allow agents the players have their own advisers (legal and accounting) so it stretches credibility that the players didn't know what they were signing up to.

[Rossm]

Of course they bloody knew. They just buried their heads in the sand and kept taking the money.

[Fats]

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.

With respect thats utter rubbish. Remove assumption from your argument and remain on fact. Go test the theory, go to you employer tomorrow and ask them to open their books, including salaries of all your colleagues, because you want to calculate their operational costs versus the contract you have in place...see what they say.
[/quote]

I am not aware of many businesses having salary caps.  Your putative comparison question is a figment of your imagination to support your view point.

It is amazing what you can learn if you ask your employer.  Try it sometime.

You're digging a hole for yourself.  The players knew, full stop.

[ricohchezwasp]

Many years ago I worked for a company who offered a chance to go on a company holiday, unfortunately HMRC cottoned on to this as being a perk and I paid the appropriate tax for the perk (additional income). A lot was made of the Saracens away trips bragging about team building, it was just a freebie holiday, I wonder who paid for all that !!

[JF]

Given that Sarries have appealed, it makes sense that they are claiming to have robust grounds for appeal. They'd hardly be using the "oh, go on, it's a nice day and we're all good friends" argument.

As far as HMRC are concerned, I'm not sure what the extra tax liability woul be. Unless the funding for these investments has come in the form of loans at an artificially low interest rate, in which case you might, subject to the structure of the deals, have a benefit in kind of interest below market rate then I can't see anything wrong.

As for whether the players knew or not, you have to distinguish between certain knowledge at a level that would stand up in court and suspicion, however strong that may be.

I may well get in contact with the London Boroough of Barnet and ask them to take down the large number of Saracens signs around the borough. They never did it for the many football clubs that used to be located in the borough but have now left. Ironically, Barnet FC  no longer play in either the borough or disctrict if Barnet.

[baldpaul101]

Look, if a player is offered £x plus other benefits with total up to £y & is assured its all above board and not to worry, do you honestly think they would be expected to do their own due diligence on whether its completely OK?

However, given the public questioning of what's been going on and given the fact they would have been going into work every day surrounded by the best players in the country, they MUST have been wondering how is was being achieved.

[RBB]

I may well get in contact with the London Borough of Barnet and ask them to take down the large number of Saracens signs around the borough. They never did it for the many football clubs that used to be located in the borough but have now left. Ironically, Barnet FC  no longer play in either the borough or disctrict if Barnet.

The local authority essentially owns the new stand until the 2018 loan is repaid and it has a 29 year payback period attached to it. So I guess they have a vested interest in the promotion of the EAs. i.e. demonstrating why they are such a great asset for the citizens and why lending them that sum of money in times of austerity was justified. Now they have to live with the cheating scandal and the fallout, good luck with that.

[Neils]

I may well get in contact with the London Borough of Barnet and ask them to take down the large number of Saracens signs around the borough. They never did it for the many football clubs that used to be located in the borough but have now left. Ironically, Barnet FC  no longer play in either the borough or disctrict if Barnet.

The local authority essentially owns the new stand until the 2018 loan is repaid and it has a 29 year payback period attached to it. So I guess they have a vested interest in the promotion of the EAs. i.e. demonstrating why they are such a great asset for the citizens and why lending them that sum of money in times of austerity was justified. Now they have to live with the cheating scandal and the fallout, good luck with that.

"The Cheating Borough of Barnet" does have a ring about it!

[St Bruno]

Hymenoptera is right in that the individual player would not know whether his contract with Saracens pushed them over the cap, and, if he asked, would probably have been told No. The player would not be entitled to ask to see the payroll and do his own sums.
What the player could have asked is that, if it's all above-board, why then does the club feel the need to have this "off-payroll" scheme for me and several others?

As said above, unless the player is unusually dim, the scheme should have raised a question or two in his mind.

It's the salary cap manager's job to report the summary details of the squad to PRL, not that of the player.

Finally, I do agree with the comment that Wray is not a "fit and proper" person to be in rugby. Two counts of cheating to his name and a great discredit done to the game of rugby in this country.

[Westy68]

I can see Saracens taking this all the way, no matter what. Can it go as high as the supreme court? 

I am staggered that still a few Saracens supporters believe that due to they coaching, academy and environment that England rugby will suffer and will all should be grateful them.