Saracens docked 35 points

[Rifleman Harris]

.... How did they manage to do that - reduce the payments to players?

They have planted a magic money tree in each company's garden and as plants aren't mentioned under the Salary Cap rules it's all ok.



Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk

[AKWasp]

Not playing for England really stinks. Clubs have been fined for not making players available for international duty (think it’s WR rules) if Sarries didn’t want all these international players missing, maybe they should’ve have broken the cap to sign them?

[Silent Bob]

I cannot make up my mind whether Eddie Jones really believes that is a possibility or whether it is just another controversial headline designed to keep his profile high whilst he pumps his book?

If he really believes it is a possibility then it could just be a warning shot across the bows of the RFU to ensure they start talking to the players.

It all really stinks though. On the R5 Live news this morning the tenor of the sports report was a little more sympathetic but Rachel Burden quickly brought it back to reality by asking how they are under the cap this season? I'm just worried that the narrative now becomes "oh fair play - they've held their hands up to the mistake". I don't care if they are relegated or not but if the points deduction is to mean anything the rest of the season needs to be played as it would normally and that includes their England players playing in 6N unless they are injured and out altogether.

[andermt]

If the sarries players aren't picked for England then I forsee legal discussions from any team that ends up getting relegated as the RFU could be guilty of 'fixing' the premiership.
There can be no performance excuse for not picking them as they were in the team that were runners-up in the World Cup.

This is going to rumble on for months!

[westwaleswasp]

I would be interested to visit the SN Sarries site come Jan. Remember, for those who monitor or participate in the DW site, the endless Kruis v Launch debates when the former was playing like a blocked drain? All those fans might be singing a different tune now that they need those players. Expect bigging up of non Sarries players. They might be a bit shafted at hooker as they have number one and three in the pecking order.

[Neils]

So cricket penalise Somerset 24 points for one misdemeanor with rugby only penalising 35 points for three years of continual cheating. Different sports and totally different attitudes. 

[wasps]

I'm so confused.
Saracens appear to be saying that they're now within the cap because Wray is no longer a part of of the co-investment companies.
There's also a statement from him where he says that they're the material part of the breach
(Note, he doesn't say they're the only part of the breach)


So where did this stuff about offshore accounts and image rights payments come from?
I've found a daily mail article from earlier in the year which states that at least 1 club has hired forensic accountants because they believe Saracens money is being hidden in offshore accounts - I've seen nothing else about this, so either nothing was found or there is nothing.


So is this breach about the co-investments or other as yet unknown payments?
It would appear to be the former.



The same daily mail article from earlier this year which referenced the previous cover up, also said that a loophole was closed after that debacle, which I'm assuming was being exploited by some clubs.
That loophole was to sign a marquee player and front load their contract so that the vast majority of their earnings was achieved in the first year. Then, after a year, change them to a normal contract and do the same thing with the next marquee player. Sounds like this had been going on for a while and was potentially the crux of the previous breaches.



I think the word I'm looking for is "shambles'

[Rifleman Harris]

24 points is only 1 good result though, so it's not quite the same.

Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk

[BdeB]

 

So cricket penalise Somerset 24 points for one misdemeanor with rugby only penalising 35 points for three years of continual cheating. Different sports and totally different attitudes.

.

24 points in cricket is one win with full bonus points. So 5 points in rugby. The equivalent fine in cricket would be 168 points.

[BG]

I'm so confused.
Saracens appear to be saying that they're now within the cap because Wray is no longer a part of of the co-investment companies.
There's also a statement from him where he says that they're the material part of the breach
(Note, he doesn't say they're the only part of the breach)


So where did this stuff about offshore accounts and image rights payments come from?
I've found a daily mail article from earlier in the year which states that at least 1 club has hired forensic accountants because they believe Saracens money is being hidden in offshore accounts - I've seen nothing else about this, so either nothing was found or there is nothing.


So is this breach about the co-investments or other as yet unknown payments?
It would appear to be the former.

This is 1 of the many elements that I find infuriating. No-one is sure what they've done. Various publications have reported that the co-investment companies were not the cause of the breach but that it was simply payments to players and 3rd parties. PRL are making things worse by not publishing a full report

And then Wray announces that Sarries are now within in the cap because he's pulled out of those co-investments.. which implies they were part of the breach. Some papers have said they were not though?

But.. if he's now pulled out of those companies doesn't that mean he's simply handed over his share of the start up capital to the player.. which is what everyone thought was the problem in the first place?

[BG]

Eddie's worried it could disrupt England:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50461381

Anyone else read that and think it sounds like a deal may be being struck with the RFU to ensure a good chunk of their England players will be made available to Sarries during the 6N to "compensate" for the points deduction in exchange for them dropping their objection?  So hypothetically Itoje, Kruis, Billy and Spencer allowed to play against Wasps on the weekend England play Ireland with Launchbury, Shields and Robson brought in only to be dropped again once the season is done?

Urgh, I read it like that too. Sounds like EJ is preparing to not pick Saracens players in the 6 Nations if they need them to key matches in that window. Hope thats purely a pessimistic reading of an ambiguous statement....

The comment is a little ambiguous.. using the phrase "they may skip" makes it sound as if the players/club are deciding not to play for England but then EJ implies a bit later that he won't pick the Sarries contingent to help Sarries out... WHAT??

This is all getting out of hand

[backdoc]

As for Saracens financial status:

"Saracens to build new £23m grandstand at Allianz Park with loan from Barnet council

The 3000-capacity stand is being financed by a £22.9 million loan from Barnet council


By Hugh Godwin
Tuesday, 19th November 2019, 8:23 am
Updated
1 hour ago


Even in their darkest hour of being fined £5,360,000 and docked 35 points for breaking the Premiership salary cap, Saracens are expanding the club by building a new grandstand at their home stadium in North London, at a cost of £23m.

The 3000-capacity stand is being financed by public money in the form of a £22.9 million loan from the local London Borough of Barnet, and i can reveal the first £3.2m was paid to Saracens three weeks ago.



Construction work on the new West Stand at Allianz Park will start soon, with the existing 55-year-old stand closed since the start of the season. Capacity at the stadium, formerly known as Barnet Copthall, will not rise significantly but better facilities should lead to increased revenue for Saracens and serve as a greater community hub.



As Saracens' salary cap appeal deadline approaches, Mark McCall insists 'it's not up to me'
The loan from Barnet Council has an interest rate of six per cent, and is due to be paid back in 30 years’ time. According to documents released under freedom-of-information requests made by local residents at a time of austerity measures in the council’s services, a condition of the loan was Saracens showing themselves to be a going concern. And the club’s financial position has altered in the past two years. The accounts for 2017-18 showed around £45million of debt to the parent company Premier Team Holdings (PTH) had been converted into equity. PTH used to be half-owned by South African investors Remgro but they sold their stake in 2018, leaving chairman Nigel Wray effectively as the sole owner.



In April this year Saracens received £13.5m in cash from CVC Capital Partners as part of the private-equity firm’s deal to buy into the Premiership. Wray, 70, immediately reinvested £2.1m back into the company now running the Premiership’s commercial activity, and headed by CVC.

Wray said in a club statement on Monday: “I will continue as always to support the club financially going forwards to ensure there is no financial instability or uncertainty.”

A Council spokesperson told i: “Barnet Council is extremely proud to host Saracens in the borough. They are an important partner and have supported our community in a number of ways, including through the Saracens Foundation and the Saracens High School.”

Asked about any effect of the £5.36m Premiership fine on Saracens’ ability to repay the loan, the spokesperson said: “The council’s loan agreement with Saracens was designed to be resilient to changes in circumstances over a 30-year period, and we are therefore confident that the council’s interests are protected.”

The remainder of the stadium loan is due to be paid in arrears, based on work completed."

[Lwasp]

£23m for just 1 stand at 6% interest? Makes the deal to buy the Ricoh funded by a bond at a similar rate an absolute steal.

[Hymenoptera]

A stand that doesnt increase capacity, its just a bit nicer.

Blimey...

[MarleyWasp]

£23m for just 1 stand at 6% interest? Makes the deal to buy the Ricoh funded by a bond at a similar rate an absolute steal.

Surely you aren't questioning the quote they received from Koch 3 Building Maintenance LTD?!?!?!