Nicked from DW (Marlow NIck) -
Quote:
Brian Moore
Silly legal claims and PR blunders just lose Saracens sympathy - here's my dos and don'ts for addressing salary cap breach
Brian Moore 27 January 2020 • 7:30am
As one of 13 golden shareholders in Premiership Rugby Limited, the body that runs the Premiership, Saracens have a responsibility for the way they conduct themselves
So much comment has been made about the judgment of Lord Dyson into Saracens’ salary cap breaches that it must be difficult for non-lawyers and rugby fans to know truth from fiction. So, let me distil the whole matter into a few essential points.
Saracens are one of 13 golden shareholders in Premiership Rugby Limited, the body that runs the Premiership. As such, they are as responsible for the way it conducts itself, and its rules, as any of its competitors.
The salary-cap rules, the way they are overseen and the sanctions for breaches were unanimously agreed. They cannot claim they did not know what was in them or what could happen if they broke them. It is ludicrous to contend, as they did, that the cap itself is illegal.
In 2015 Saracens had to come to a settlement with PRL over the salary cap, described by Dyson as a “yellow card”. This was a reminder, if any were needed, of the rules and their seriousness. Regulation 6.13 states: “If a Club wishes to clarify the meaning or applicability of any of the Regulations, it shall contact the Salary Cap Manager (SCM) in writing...” The SCM is mandated to respond and anything that might break the rules can be clarified before a club actions it.
Given all this, why did Saracens not get clarification from the SCM before making the payments that broke the rules? Nobody from the club has given any reason – beyond saying it was down to a lack of communication between the family office of Nigel Wray and the club’s administration, which they claim they are rectifying – for not doing so. They cannot, therefore, complain the prevailing view is there appears to be no clear explanation.
Knowing what was in the judgment before it was formally released, the way the club handled this crisis is an object lesson in how not to do so. So here is a top 10 legal and PR “DO NOTS” for Saracens re salary cap. Do not:
- Claim regulations you scrutinised and agreed to abide by are now illegal, especially when your two main witnesses contradict this submission.
- Claim the cap hinders you in Europe when you are three-time and current winners. That submission, added to your claim that you were within the cap, means you either were not being truthful or the point is nonsense.
- Submit a witness statement on claimed matters of fact that appears to be largely a cut and paste from the testimony of another person (as then-chief executive Mitesh Velani did).
- Allege a main witness (Mark McCafferty) is untruthful and some evidence is inaccurate if you cannot prove it. This undermines assertions on other issues.
- Angrily say one of the most respected judges in England got it wrong because your legal advisers tell you so. His opinion is what matters and theirs has been confounded.
- Threaten to appeal and then fail to do so. It looks weak and lessens the impact of any later threats.
- Selectively brief supposedly supportive journalists. I do not care; it makes no difference to my opinion and my job does not require this, but most do, and they will not give you the benefit of the doubt when they later write.
- Assume the full report may not become publicly available. If you make claims about what it said you will be judged accordingly.
- Contend the phrase “not deliberate” means the panel thought you acted innocently. The judgment was very critical of you and ruled that you acted recklessly and your behaviour was egregious.
- Initially refuse to apologise and then later apologise. Nobody believes it is sincere and it suggests you knew you were wrong but did not have the courage to admit it – that, or your values are awry.
Top 1 “DO”:
- Apologise as fully and early as you can and take your punishment without complaint and certainly without claiming you have been hard done to, when you know the panel did you a favour and halved the agreed sanctions.
I admire many things about this club but their ludicrous legal claims and subsequent public relations blunders extinguished most people’s residual sympathy. Worse, they obscured the club’s outstanding achievements in nurturing talent and forging a winning team; things that cannot be done by just spending more money than anyone else. The case they should make is that clubs whose academy players turn out to be England stars should have a discount on the cap for each academy year; otherwise they are penalised for benefiting the English game.
Always a Wasp
