Potential Salary Dispensation For A Season

[Tervueren]

They’ve had a lot of new signings in the past few seasons.  Mind you, so have Sale.

Listen to the Venter interview on the BBC 5 Live Podcast.  Very little substance to it - insisted it was differences of calculations for Maro’s Image Rights and then also differences of opinion on co-investment. 

He also poo-pooed the mooted £2m overspend before struggling to come up with a number when asked “So if it wasn’t £2m and you have the inside track on that, then what was it...” he started off saying he didn’t know, then eventually replied it was £500k they had to reduce by which wouldn’t make much sense given the level of fines and points deduction.

Apparently Saracens had paid £3m in legal fees independently scrutinising their position prior to the investigation.  By all accounts, that’s a lie or they might wish to get their money back.

He said it was grossly unfair that they were only given the mandate to get under the cap this season in November and told to do so by January - But overlooked the fact that they shouldn’t have been over it in the first place.

Lastly, he was asked whether he had ever had any discussions about how to circumnavigate the cap when he was in charge.  A slight pause while he considered a response then replied that he hadn’t, as back in 2009 the cap wasn’t an issue/in place - Before being corrected that there has been a cap in place since 1999.  Doh!

Virtually entirely an opinion piece from him, with little-to-no validatable fact in his answers.

From an article on RugbyPass https://www.rugbypass.com/news/andy-goode-and-brendan-venter-get-into-a-heated-debate-over-saracens

Venter believed that it was former chairman Nigel Wray’s kindness that led the club to be in the state that it was in.

“Every time that a player needed to be kept, the player would go to Nigel personally and Nigel would broker a deal with him. And Nigel would always broker a deal around the joint investments thing.”

[BG]

To be fair, he might have a point if the loophole is being used to get within the cap.

Doesn't excuse Saracens though ...

At least we're all learning more nuances regarding the PRL regs and the loan rules do seem to be open to abuse.

I don't thik it applies to Jacob's loan to Leeds and Auckland as he was in the academy so it his wages wouldn't count anyway

I wasn't even aware that clubs loaned players out from their senior squad.. its seems like a waste of resources.

What Ventner is pointing out is noithng in comparison to what Sarries have done.. whatever they have done?

It does show that PRL have more holes in their regulations than a packet of Polos.. but is this as a result of the clubs helping form those regulations?

[wasps]

Is what bath have supposedly done actually a problem?

They've got some new players and loaned them out for the year.

They're then in a situation where they have long term injuries.


They have 3 options.
1) do nothing and make do with a smaller squad
2) recall a player from loan and pay some of his salary within the cap
3) get an injury Joker in who wouldn't be counted in the cap at all


Surely option 3 would have an even smaller impact on the salary cap than option 2




For me, the Gloucester story sounds more concerning.
Naming some players, likely well paid ones (definitely sharples as he's been fringe England) as on season long loan, but they're not actually loaned anywhere and they stay with the club.

That just sounds very wrong

[Hymenoptera]

Venter says 100% they wont have to get rid of any players other than people ending contracts and Mcall was wrong..apart from the fact he's a liar, we will see.

[BG]

For me, the Gloucester story sounds more concerning.
Naming some players, likely well paid ones (definitely sharples as he's been fringe England) as on season long loan, but they're not actually loaned anywhere and they stay with the club.

That just sounds very wrong

Is that the same as admitting you might be over the cap at the start of the season, expecting a long term injury at some point, then bring the loaned player back in?

That sounds like front loading a squad and see what happens ... a bit like what some airlines do in terms of selling more seats than they actually have, in the expectation that some people won't be there to fill the seats..

Taking that a step further.. could this happen with injury credits?

[InBetweenWasp]

From an article on RugbyPass https://www.rugbypass.com/news/andy-goode-and-brendan-venter-get-into-a-heated-debate-over-saracens

Venter believed that it was former chairman Nigel Wray’s kindness that led the club to be in the state that it was in.

“Every time that a player needed to be kept, the player would go to Nigel personally and Nigel would broker a deal with him. And Nigel would always broker a deal around the joint investments thing.”

So, if what the good Doctor is saying is true and co-investment was only offered as part of player retention and not helping players with life after business then that surely suggests it was done as a way to re-numerate a player outside of the salary cap (ie not a deal at commercial rates/terms) and both Wray and Player(s) were complicit in that?

I quite agree it’s his generosity/kindness that has caused and can wholly accept it was done to retain players nurtured from a young age who’s market rates had skyrocketed on the back of Domestic, International and Lions successes. 

BUT, Wray has never claimed that was the reason and has instead denied all knowledge of any wrongdoing and lied about the situation.

I just don’t get how a kind-hearted, generous man couldn’t just say

“Yep, I’ve personally remunerated a number of players to help retain them where squeezed as the current credit system doesn’t provide enough compensation where there is a high number of Internationals/Lions.  We’re happy to open our books to demonstrate that’s all it was. The system is broken and I’m going to campaign for a system that allows clubs to better nuture and retain their young players”

[DGP Wasp]

Venter says 100% they wont have to get rid of any players other than people ending contracts and Mcall was wrong..apart from the fact he's a liar, we will see.

So the former Sarries boss has a better idea of current finances and player salaries than the present one.

On that basis, anyone curious as to how close to the cap Wasps are this season would be better off asking Warren Gatland than asking Dai.

[DGP Wasp]

Bill Sweeney now saying that players could be considered for England selection if playing overseas:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51196597

Hard to argue that these aren't "exceptional circumstances", but there's probably already enough resentment in the England camp towards the Sarries players without allowing them to go and earn even more in France and still be selected for England while those from other clubs would not be given the same opportunity.  Not to mention the issue of player access outside of official international windows and limits on number of games which would be unenforceable outside of the EPS agreement.

[MarleyWasp]

Two thoughts on the following article in The Times:

1) Quins v Salarysins should be a tad lively on Sunday
2) The Clubs really do seem to be taking the view that when it comes to Salarysins, sympathy is just a word in the dictionary that can be found somewhere in between s**t and syphilis...

Rivals’ dossier aided Saracens fall

Owen Slot, Chief Rugby Correspondent

January 22 2020, 12:01am, The Times

Rival clubs were feeding information to Premier Rugby about Saracens’ suspected breaches of the salary cap, helping to put in place the investigation that resulted in the English and European champions being relegated.

Harlequins were one of the clubs that did their own investigations and compiled what The Times has been told was a “huge dossier”. The information was then passed on to Andrew Rogers, the Premier Rugby (PRL) salary cap manager.

The south west London club were working on their dossier towards the end of 2018, which is when PRL began its investigation. Harlequins started searching for information through Companies House, unearthing information about the network of co-investments that Nigel Wray, the then Saracens chairman and owner, had entered into with some of his players.

Harlequins also shared details about alleged property ownership in north London and the St Albans area and about farm ownership in South Africa.

Other clubs were also passing information to Rogers, The Times understands. It was felt that his one-man department was understaffed and could do with all the help he could get.

One of the deals that PRL was advised to investigate was the move by Jim Hamilton, the Scotland lock, from Montpellier to Saracens in 2014. Hamilton chose to go to Saracens despite the interest of other English clubs.

Some of the information that the clubs passed to PRL came second-hand through player agents. At the time, Saracens had a history of cutting agents out of their players’ contract deals, which enraged the agents, who were then happy to pass on their own knowledge of how Saracens were doing their business.

The investigation by PRL finally came to fruition in the ruling last November that Saracens had breached the cap in three successive seasons. They were initially fined £5.36 million and docked 35 points. When it became clear last week that they were set to break the salary cap again this season, they accepted automatic relegation.

Throughout the process, Saracens have worked to keep information of the illegal deals exposed by the PRL investigation out of the public eye.

Many people at PRL want to publish the judgment, but that would require the approval of all the clubs and Darren Childs, the PRL chief executive, said yesterday that Saracens had gone out of their way to prevent it happening.

Two months ago, Mark McCall, the Saracens director of rugby, said that he would like the judgment to be published. However, that is clearly not the official position of the club.

“I would be very keen to look at a more open approach,” Childs said. “But just so we are really clear, there is a specific action by Saracens to tell us not to release. We do not have their consent to release that document and we have that in writing from them.”

Childs also said yesterday that in the unlikely event that Saracens overcome their 35-point deduction to finish in fourth — they are 29 points behind fourth-placed Sale with 14 games to go — they would not be allowed to compete in the play-offs.

“The current thinking is that if they hit top four, they won’t be participating in the play-offs,” Childs said. “The fifth-placed club will take part instead. We are still working through the final details. This is a club that for four years in a row has failed to demonstrate its compliance with the league’s regulations.”

Childs said that the review into PRL’s governance aimed to “make sure nothing like this can ever happen again.” He said: “The only outcome I want to make sure of is [that] we are never in this situation again.”

England rules to be decided
There is no decision yet on whether Saracens players could keep playing for England if they move to a foreign club on loan next season.

The RFU has an agreement that all England players must play for an English club, barring “exceptional circumstances”. “Anything to do with exemptions and exceptional circumstances is a bit hypothetical at this stage,” Bill Sweeney, the RFU chief executive, said. “The first time we need to consider things like that are the autumn internationals.”

[Neils]

They really angered their "colleagues" didn't they! Listening to Owen and Lol in this week's podcast does suggest far more to come out. Wonder how the Armitages and Abendenons of this world will feel if suddenly EA players get "dispensation" for playing in France

[hookender]

Childs also said yesterday that in the unlikely event that Saracens overcome their 35-point deduction to finish in fourth — they are 29 points behind fourth-placed Sale with 14 games to go — they would not be allowed to compete in the play-offs.

“The current thinking is that if they hit top four, they won’t be participating in the play-offs,” Childs said. “The fifth-placed club will take part instead. We are still working through the final details. This is a club that for four years in a row has failed to demonstrate its compliance with the league’s regulations.”
 
 I thought they were being relegated , where has this come from?

[baldpaul101]

I wouldn't expect many players to be that angry with Sarries players. I would expect their thinking to be along the line sof " if you can earn big money, good on you"
I can't see many would have turned down a Sarries Salary if they had been offered it.

re playing in Farnce & still getting picked for England, I can't see the players being that annoyed, same as above really. However I would have thought PRL may be less than impressed because it threatens the Prem & their deal with the RFU if England players can play abroad & still get picked.

Another aspect of this whole saga that will run & run!!

[RogerE]

Childs also said yesterday that in the unlikely event that Saracens overcome their 35-point deduction to finish in fourth — they are 29 points behind fourth-placed Sale with 14 games to go — they would not be allowed to compete in the play-offs.

“The current thinking is that if they hit top four, they won’t be participating in the play-offs,” Childs said. “The fifth-placed club will take part instead. We are still working through the final details. This is a club that for four years in a row has failed to demonstrate its compliance with the league’s regulations.”
 
 I thought they were being relegated , where has this come from?

I think that, the way everything is at present, they could come fourth, win the Premiership title and then be relegated, which will make it even more awkward for PRL.

This is just making sure there is no way Sarries could make it even more embarrassing for everyone else.

[hookender]

does say current thinking though. so if sarries change mind now about report/audit etc would prem rugby go back to 35 pt reduction?

[AKWasp]

House of Rugby- Hask talks about 2015 and says that DR (refers to him as the owner) was ready to push the knife in with all the other 9 owners who weren’t breaking the cap but overnight all that sentiment stopped and Hask was told that it got swept under the carpet- makes me feel like Wasps have usually been on the right side of it (other than the actual administrative oversight)

Also refused to pay him more for image rights because it would push them over the cap