Bath v Cheats (Spoiler)

[RogerE]

Those of you who remember Dixie, a Wasps supporter from the depths of time who used to post on DW, will remember he always called them Saffacens.

Something that is now true again following the South African "take over".

[InBetweenWasp]

Bath are spiralling out of control.  I think Stooke has suggested previously (or was it Burns?) that the problem with Bath was players being out for themselves and refusing to take responsibility/accountability.

They're very much like Tigers pre-Borthwick.  They really need a clearout and this season without relegation was probably the one to hit reset in.  They've got some great young talent in that squad and feels like they need a clearout of some of the senior folk.

As for Saffacens, Cheats or plain old boring Sarries.  Jim Hamilton interviewed their new Chairman, Neil Golding last week for a one-off episode of The Rugby Pod.  Neil is a Partner at Law Firm Freshfields.  A couple of tidbits from it:

-- Neil's position came about after having told Nigel that they needed to tighten up on their Corporate Governance and Nigel suggested he might help them with that

-- He agreed to join on the proviso that they are fully transparent with him and are squeaky clean both for the benefit of re-buildings Saracens reputation as a Club but also upholding his reputation and that of the firm

-- From a salary cap perspective, he's said that they now have a very clear model where anything that isn't clear and obvious they now check with Andrew Rogers the PRL Salary Cap Manager (It will be interesting to see if Billy, Mako and George don't get selected in the EPS whether they suddenly find themselves over the cap - it'll give us a good insight on how close to the bone they are)

-- He was very coy on past misdemeanours and when Jim asked him about them, he said there was no point discussing as it was water under the bridge and they must move on as a club (to me, if you were adamant you weren't guilty of anything other than not checking with the Salary Cap manager or were using a loophole that was Legal but unintended you'd surely just say that).  No comment = Sounds suspicous that they knew they were guilty

-- They spoke about co-investment and about co-investments only being based on sound business plans presented to Nigel.
 Jim also mentioned that it was a reason why players were often drawn to sign for the club.  (I'm sure there was a caveat in the Salary Cap that effectively said if a player was getting something that was solely down to them being a player at that Club that it would effectively constitute as salary - Does anyone else recall something similar?)

-- In response to questions on whether the punishment was fair, Neil said the fine and points deduction was both harsh but reasonable with them being both financially punished and their tenure in the prem put in jeopardy.

-- As part of the above, he suggested that Saracens had agreed to open their books.  I thought I recall it being suggested they had refused to open their books and thus incurred the second points deduction - i.e. were given a choice of being forensically audited or taking the points deduction.  They chose the latter.

[Rossm]

....As part of the above, he suggested that Saracens had agreed to open their books.  I thought I recall it being suggested they had refused to open their books and thus incurred the second points deduction - i.e. were given a choice of being forensically audited or taking the points deduction.  They chose the latter.

That's pretty much as I remember it, IBW.

[Neils]

....As part of the above, he suggested that Saracens had agreed to open their books.  I thought I recall it being suggested they had refused to open their books and thus incurred the second points deduction - i.e. were given a choice of being forensically audited or taking the points deduction.  They chose the latter.

That's pretty much as I remember it, IBW.

Yes as stated by Wray according to the press coverage.

[Marlow Nick]

-- Neil's position came about after having told Nigel that they needed to tighten up on their Corporate Governance and Nigel suggested he might help them with that

-- He agreed to join on the proviso that they are fully transparent with him and are squeaky clean both for the benefit of re-buildings Saracens reputation as a Club but also upholding his reputation and that of the firm

Of course if you wanted to continue cheating this is exactly the sort of smoke screen you'd create.

I realise my cynicism means Saracens are damned if they do damned if they don't but trust is easily lost and hard to regain. A few ycophantic press releases and podcasts with ex players is not enough to convince me.

[InBetweenWasp]

Fair Marlow Nick

I think we'll see a split camp on this one and it's difficult to argue that either side are wrong.  Time will tell if they're kosher now or not when it comes to abiding by the Salary Cap and the spirit of it's rules.  I hope that Neil encourages squeaky clean behaviour in spirit, rather than the F1 route of exploiting loopholes that are within the written laws but not in the spirit of them.

It's all of their own makings though.  A greater degree of contrition and transparency during the process would have led to significantly less ongoing cynicism towards them.

[wasps]

Personally, I absolutely don't believe that premier rugby found out everything that was going on, and I firmly believe that they were over the salary cap by a lot more than was identified.

At first I was willing to give the new ownership a clean slate and see how it goes, however, seeing how closely tied the new ownership is to the previous regime, I feel they still carry some of the history with them.




Some of the proof will be new signings and contact renewals.
Historically, other clubs have had good players in their squad, but struggled to hold onto them.
If Saracens are working with the same cap as everyone else, they should have the same problems - particularly as the cap is reducing