Is it just me

[matelot22]

I have never wished ill on a player but that might change if they win it. The players are complicit, and if they don't suffer for whay amounts to years of cheating there will be a feeling that they have gotten away with it.

That's it though, to me they have seemingly got away with it. The fans on the Sarries EA board all think they've been hard done by and I was still moaning on there up until last week, when I realised there is no point. They were all in denial beforehand, but now think that they've paid their dues.

Nothing less than removing Nigel Wray and dismantling that squad will satisfy me that justice has been done, and we all know that both are extremely unlikely to happen.

[westwaleswasp]

Yes, I am gutted. Fingers crossed the books are opened.

[Neils]

Yes, I am gutted. Fingers crossed the books are opened.

I actually don't think this will show anything. Wray has got it all sorted. He has had months to do so.

[backdoc]

Just dont attend games played against Sarries, and dont watch on TV.

That is the only currency we have against them.

[Raggs]

You can only say they are over the cap this season at the end of the season. I have no doubt that their numbers will be very carefully checked.

[wasps]

Have they actually been caught breaking the salary cap itself?

I.e. have "Saracens" ever been caught paying more to their players than their allotted salary cap budget?

I don't believe they have.

We're led to believe that this time they've been done because of the co-investments - none of which will be through Saracens books

So I really don't see that a mid season audit will show anything

[matelot22]

Have they actually been caught breaking the salary cap itself?

I.e. have "Saracens" ever been caught paying more to their players than their allotted salary cap budget?

I don't believe they have.

We're led to believe that this time they've been done because of the co-investments - none of which will be through Saracens books

So I really don't see that a mid season audit will show anything

I really don't want to trawl through all the old threads, but I'm pretty sure that they had been caught "exceeding the cap" by 2 million over the 3 years and that the co-investments were just written off as an unintentional error of judgement???

[wasps]

I found an article relating to the previous hushed up breaches from about 5 years ago.

It seems like one of the main points there was that Saracens (and presumably the other clubs involved) were signing a marquee player with a front loaded contract, then after 1 year giving that player a new contract as a squad player, then bringing in another marquee player with a front loaded contract.


The idea being you could sign an overseas player for £1.2m over 3 years.
Pay them £1m of that in the first year when they're a marquee so outside the cap.
Then give them a standard squad contract for £100k per year for 2 years



That's what brought the rule in that marquee contracts couldn't be front loaded.



As a one off, I'd almost be willing to accept it as clever accounting.
However, as Tony Rowe has said, Saracens were then told to toe the line, and they didn't.

Even if some quarters want it to die down, I bet Rowe won't let it lie

[mike909]

And yet the "they've admitted their guilt and its time to move on" meme is all over comments elsewhere alongside loads of excuses

And yet - nothing has change - a starting XV with over 500 caps, without including Goode and Williams.

[matelot22]

I found an article relating to the previous hushed up breaches from about 5 years ago.

It seems like one of the main points there was that Saracens (and presumably the other clubs involved) were signing a marquee player with a front loaded contract, then after 1 year giving that player a new contract as a squad player, then bringing in another marquee player with a front loaded contract.


The idea being you could sign an overseas player for £1.2m over 3 years.
Pay them £1m of that in the first year when they're a marquee so outside the cap.
Then give them a standard squad contract for £100k per year for 2 years



That's what brought the rule in that marquee contracts couldn't be front loaded.



As a one off, I'd almost be willing to accept it as clever accounting.
However, as Tony Rowe has said, Saracens were then told to toe the line, and they didn't.

Even if some quarters want it to die down, I bet Rowe won't let it lie

I'd like to think that the other owners / chairmen whoever is in the seats of power will stand with Rowe. Every club has suffered one way or another and will continue to do so as long as that squad remains intact. Justice has to be seen to be done for the game to have any credibility whatsoever, a slap on the wrist simply does not equate to justice.

[mike909]

You can only say they are over the cap this season at the end of the season. I have no doubt that their numbers will be very carefully checked.

Its humbling that all those internationals are prepared to play for below market wages!

[Rifleman Harris]

The thing is they are obviously going to carry on cheating. One way or another they will / are circumnavigating the cap and nothing will be found in the audits.

[Neils]

The thing is they are obviously going to carry on cheating. One way or another they will / are circumnavigating the cap and nothing will be found in the audits.

This completely. Wray has said as much.

If one of your number does not agree with the rules, regulations and constraints they shoud be banished.

[BG]

Have they actually been caught breaking the salary cap itself?

I.e. have "Saracens" ever been caught paying more to their players than their allotted salary cap budget?

I don't believe they have.

We're led to believe that this time they've been done because of the co-investments - none of which will be through Saracens books

So I really don't see that a mid season audit will show anything

I really don't want to trawl through all the old threads, but I'm pretty sure that they had been caught "exceeding the cap" by 2 million over the 3 years and that the co-investments were just written off as an unintentional error of judgement???

This is one of the many facets of the ruling that is very annoying.. we don't actually know what they were pinged for.

The intial DM investigation targetted the various co-investments but some newspapers have then reported its pure and simple over-payments to players directly or 3rd parties. Payments can include a lot of things though.. 3rd parties could include wives/girlfriends or even the ltd companies.

I'm hoping one of the clubs will leak the report at some point.. PRLLeaks.com

[Vespula Vulgaris]

The problem is that PRL have not even released the report to the shareholders. 

Each shareholding club is allowed to send a representative to PRL HQ where they can read the report under direct supervision.  They are not allowed to take it away, make notes, or photograph any of it.  As I understand it the report is well over 100 pages.

So in effect anything we hear is:

a) based on one person's memory - a person who is contracted not to reveal any of the contents.

Or

b) guesswork from a journalist who thinks they probably know what it likely says.