This was mentioned when the story was bubbling under at the start of the season. £900K cut in salaries was mooted.
For what it is worth I don't believe we are fully up to the cap this season. And if only one of the high profile players rumoured to be going actually do go, then we'll have plenty to spare next season.
For what it is worth I don't believe we are fully up to the cap this season. And if only one of the high profile players rumoured to be going actually do go, then we'll have plenty to spare next season.
Pure matter of interest how much do you reckon we are under by?
I thought wasps were spending way under the cap for money reasons.
Rugby pod had it as though Derek was deciding to spend less hence we spend less.
Funny how they seem to know the inner financial workings of the club when none of it is released.
Maybe they could let us know the next lottery numbers too?
Dai was quoted as saying we are way below the cap...
Not sure he did ...besides, Wray owns it, Dai doesn'tDai was quoted as saying we are way below the cap...
Wray said something similar.
Regarding The Ruck podcast, some fantastic points raised by Mark Evans with regards to how a cap should operate but ultimately that is absolutely brutal regarding Saracens. Both Mark and LOL confirmed that the people who have read the report confirm Saracens didn't break the cap, they smashed it!
You can't help but think unless there is a strong head honcho appointed to police the Salary Cap we won't have a fair league whilst Saracens are in it.
Let's imagine the worst case scenario.
Saracens keep on winning; Wasps keep on losing and end the season at the bottom of the league. Should we give notice now that if that happens, we intend to sue whoever is responsible for breaking the salary cap rules. And who is it - PRL for not relegating Saracens or Saracens for breaking the Laws of Rugby? (capitals used deliberately).
That's probably why the talk of ring-fencing is growing with London Irish welcomed back into the now-closed PRL club.
Depending on the size of the overspend there will come a point in the season where they are over regardless of cutting players. At that point perhaps we can hit them with another 35 point deduction and fine.So I learnt this today, which I didnt realise and is totally wrong. The cap is the average of the full year, so the fact that they are over it now, currently beating teams is irrelevant. That sticks in the throat. For me, if they are over at any point they are cheating, front loading a team and gaining momentum .. against teams that are losing and struggling with the mental 'losing' syndrome.
I've decided to look on this positively, firstly because our outrage has no effect, partly because of what happened to NWW, and partly because it's possible we may actually come out of this well.
So hows this for a possible outcome.
Sarries let their squad know that if anyone wishes to leave for another club with immediate effect they will be allowed to.
If the owners of the other clubs have already had this plan for some time then approaches may already have been made.
So who do they have that we may wish to sign?
Loz probably, anyone else?
On the Saracens board they are speculating that 3 players could be out for the season due to injury and hence outside the cap. Williams, Figalo and Rhodes.
I've checked the rules and this seems legitimate as long as they are out for the entire season and Saracens make do with smaller squad not using medical jokers.
What's less clear is what happens if/when they become fit again but Saracens choose not to select them. I wouldn't put it past them to fake an injury!
So it's not about being injured for the season, it's whether or not they play at all???
That would suggest you could have players in the senior squad that you only use for cup games and Europe and don't contribute towards the salary cap.
Sounds like another loophole to me
What wingers do they have? I'd love a power runner like Northampton brought on against us
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-7861985/Williams-leave-early-Saracens-exodus-salary-cap-England-stars-remain.html
Full back Liam Williams will make an earlier than expected move to Scarlets, he has not played this season so his wage will not count within the salary cap
Argentina prop Juan Figallo is another rumoured to be leaving soon. Clark has played four times for Saracens this season, but Rhodes and Figallo are yet to make an appearance.
If Clark, Figallo and Rhodes make swift exits, it is estimated that Saracens could cut around £800,000 from their wage bill.
Max Malins out till April and out of contract at the end of the season and was already rumoured to be attracting interest from elsewhere, so if they decide not to play him for the handful of games after he returns from injury, then is his salary not included from the point at which he was injured? Dose a doctor need to declare him fit / unfit for the purposes of cap calculation, or is it simply down to whether or not he plays?
There is no way Williams was on £230k.. if he was, he needs to sack his agent.
Williams was a 50 cap plus Wales international at the time of signing,.. was he also a British Lion? He would easily command £400k on the open market when he signed for Sarries.. but would he have been signed as a marquee player?
Maybe Sarries have special permission to have 8 marquee players
(l) any Salary (other than payments or benefits caught by paragraph 1(q) of Schedule (1) paid during a Salary Cap Year to a Player who, due to injury, has not played or been a replacement for the Club during that Salary Cap Year in the Gallagher Premiership, European Challenge Cup, European Champions Cup, Premiership Rugby Cup or in more than 3 matches in any other Competition, on condition that:
(i) the application made by the Club must include an Injury Certificate certifying that the Player’s limited participation has been caused by injury together with all other requested documentation as deemed relevant by the Salary Cap Manager in order to consider the application fully and fairly; and
(ii) the Club has not brought in a replacement player under the injury dispensation provisions set out in Regulation 5.
For the purposes of this Regulation, a sevens tournament shall count as one
Competition match;
(q) any payment or benefit in kind paid in respect of a Player in connection with his redundancy or the termination of his playing contract with the Club including all redundancy or termination payments or benefits in kind (whether paid or payable provided or to be provided voluntarily, contractually, pursuant to statute or otherwise). Any such payment or benefit in kind shall count as Salary in the Salary Cap Year in which the player contract terminates, irrespective of whether it is paid, payable, provided, or to be provided before, during or after the Salary Cap Year concerned;
Player" means any Senior Player of a Club who sustains an injury which has prevented or is anticipated to prevent him playing rugby
(a) for a minimum continuous period of twelve weeks within a Season; or
(b) where the same injury spans two Salary Cap Years the injury is for a minimum of eight weeks within the Season of the Salary Cap Year in relation to which the injury dispensation is being sought, subject in each case to the requirement that once an injured player is selected in a match squad in any Competition fixture he will cease being an injured player;
Releasing players - a perfect example of how Saracens look after players welfare.
Not sure how that works, who wants to sign an injured player, in a position that most teams have decent offerings and for Rhodes, he'll be getting shitty offers at best.Releasing players - a perfect example of how Saracens look after players welfare.
However, once Rhodes is no longer injured, his salary can start counting again, so better to move him on before he's fit.
Not sure how that works, who wants to sign an injured player, in a position that most teams have decent offerings and for Rhodes, he'll be getting shitty offers at best.Releasing players - a perfect example of how Saracens look after players welfare.
However, once Rhodes is no longer injured, his salary can start counting again, so better to move him on before he's fit.
"Releasing players - a perfect example of how Saracens look after players welfare.
Doesn't seem like a particularly fair comment. What are they supposed to do? Keep overpaying them and take another fine/points deduction?"
They are supposed to respect the salary cap.
When they break it repeatedly, and insist it is all about looking after the players, then their values stink when this happens.
Shugs - They're books will be checked very closely this season, they've got a lot of work to do, and legally it's going to be very tough.
This is called integrity. Something they have banged on about in their delusional past decade.
Ce la vie. You got yourself into this mess....and lied about it yet again up to round 9."Releasing players - a perfect example of how Saracens look after players welfare.
Doesn't seem like a particularly fair comment. What are they supposed to do? Keep overpaying them and take another fine/points deduction?"
They are supposed to respect the salary cap.
When they break it repeatedly, and insist it is all about looking after the players, then their values stink when this happens.
Shugs - They're books will be checked very closely this season, they've got a lot of work to do, and legally it's going to be very tough.
This is called integrity. Something they have banged on about in their delusional past decade.
Their values stink, but you either let them release players to get back in line with the cap, or they'll be over it again.
Read that apparently Wray is director of Simba Sleep, the same company that sponsors Itoje.
Who'd have thought.
Read that apparently Wray is director of Simba Sleep, the same company that sponsors Itoje.
Who'd have thought.
Indeed, it would appear so.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/09703422/officers
Whether they're official sponsors for him or not, they're using him for their advertising.
That's image rights which should be included in the cap
There's an article in the Times saying that Saracens were nearly handed a 70 point deduction.
I don't subscribe so I don't know the details of why it didn't happen, but I thought 35 points was the highest possible penalty
There's an article in the Times saying that Saracens were nearly handed a 70 point deduction.
I still don't understand why they haven't been stripped of their titles ?
I thought Rangers were re-formed so were a new club and so the vote from the SFL clubs was that they start gain at the bottom.
It's the first time I've heard that they'll have 2 points deductions running concurrently.
So -35 points for next season too.
Do they have a double fine as well?
It's the first time I've heard that they'll have 2 points deductions running concurrently.
So -35 points for next season too.
Do they have a double fine as well?
Don't think so, surely that would be consecutively? Concurrently meaning "at the same time" means the other 35 point penalty is a hypothetical one??? Like when crims are sent down with concurrent sentences for different offences.
|
|
|
Thanks Heathen saves me buying a hard copy.
Sorry in the spirit of the game the point deductions should have been this season and next. Stuff concurrent. Also I thought it was a three season penalty. So where is the first season. Shedding a few players is not cutting it for me.
Also the continual reference to over a specific sum is not helpful. EA fans take that figure as gospel but it is becoming clearer that it is far far more.
Regulation 14.2 of the Premiership Rugby rules allows a disciplinary panel to exercise discretion in cases where it deems that a penalty “would lead to the club being unfairly punished . . . or would lead to a result not within the spirit and underlying purpose of the regulations”.
The panel therefore decided that rather than being added together, the two 35-point penalties should run concurrently.
So..first it was just co-investments..now its def co-investments plus breach.
Wrong thing for the right reason still? How is this linked to player welfare? What will Salaries fans use as denial this time?
How are they going to save money during the season? Mid-season moves are rare in the PRL and I assume that players have signed a contract for a full season or two. How are they going to release them mid-season without breaching their contract and notice entitlement? They will have to agree some compensation and probably a settlement agreement - which will basically say that "in return for the payment you have agreed to give me, I promise that this is in full & final settlement of our contract". This usually means that they get more than their notice entitlement.I think it means the player has to agree to the transfer and the other club sign them immediately, so avoiding any redundancy payment etc, which would be included in the cap.
I enjoyed listening to Paul William's on Under The Sticks today on the matter. He points out how its progressed from a few transgressions where they forgot to report a few payments to now its seeming it was a deliberately contrived scheme to cheat the league. This is just further proof how Nigel always has been and remains a lying cheating scum bag who thinks hes above the rules. Some might think that's harsh but I've paid money to watch a rigged league...I've seen people lose their jobs and players careers be cut short or unfairly judged based on the fact others were cheating the whole time. Yes I'm angry. Also angry at how even now most the Saracens fans fail to hold their club to account and continue to say they have been harshly treated.
Why not save us all the stress and just kick them out of the league only to return once they have disbanded their team all together. Cutting a few players still does not undo the advantage they have had in being able to retain players and build a cohesive team and club.
And as a Wasps - I'd really like to know the influence of the "we can afford anyone" was on the semi when even with all those cheaters we managed 5 tries......
And as a Wasps - I'd really like to know the influence of the "we can afford anyone" was on the semi when even with all those cheaters we managed 5 tries......
Would that be the away semi that Sarries had both home advantage and the proceeds of the gate?
And we didn't.
Because we were cheated out of it.
By an unapologetic pack of liars.
I enjoyed listening to Paul William's on Under The Sticks today on the matter. He points out how its progressed from a few transgressions where they forgot to report a few payments to now its seeming it was a deliberately contrived scheme to cheat the league. This is just further proof how Nigel always has been and remains a lying cheating scum bag who thinks hes above the rules. Some might think that's harsh but I've paid money to watch a rigged league...I've seen people lose their jobs and players careers be cut short or unfairly judged based on the fact others were cheating the whole time. Yes I'm angry. Also angry at how even now most the Saracens fans fail to hold their club to account and continue to say they have been harshly treated. NIGEL LIED TO THEM TO. They should be just as angry. The way certain media have reported on this has also been pathetic. Jim Hamilton and Stephen Jones etc. Absolute joke!!! It might be against the spirit of rugby but for me who ever wears the Jersey or cheers on the badge has lost my respect and I wish them the worst of luck. They deserve to be relegated. What ever happens at the end of this season if it is anything other than them going down there will remain some really angry people around.
Even them being relegated wont undo the damage they have intentionally done in the last decade of premiership rugby.
Why not save us all the stress and just kick them out of the league only to return once they have disbanded their team all together. Cutting a few players still does not undo the advantage they have had in being able to retain players and build a cohesive team and club.
"Basically, Saracens now have big trouble."
Let's hope so.
If we had been right at the top table, would we have lost Cips, Loz, Daly, Hughes, Symonds, C-W, Stuart etc? They felt we weren't going to win anything and moved either for money and/or more likelihood of trophies [yes Cips was more complicated].
Baxter was bang on when he talked about careers being broken by this.
Hi 13thWarrior:
It may called a transfer as in football but it’s a change of employer - from Saracens to whoever - and that means the employment with Saracens has been terminated. So the player can claim unfair dismissal if he’s been given no choice in the matter. One alternative is to agree he’s been made redundant - which seems to be the case since Saracens will be saying we can’t afford to keep him - which will give the player peanuts if all they do is give him the very low statutory redundancy payment. And if the player isn’t happy with how much they give him, they can say “why have you chosen me rather than ......
That’s why most organisations do deals - we’ll pay this much as long as you sign an agreement saying you won’t sue us. And Saracens will then have paid even more out above the salary cap.
The players at risk need to find a good employer lawyer to represent them. Probably not from Freshfields since they will disqualified because one of their partners is now Saracens’ Chair.
Basically, Saracens now have big trouble.
Hi 13thWarrior:
It may called a transfer as in football but it’s a change of employer - from Saracens to whoever - and that means the employment with Saracens has been terminated. So the player can claim unfair dismissal if he’s been given no choice in the matter. One alternative is to agree he’s been made redundant - which seems to be the case since Saracens will be saying we can’t afford to keep him - which will give the player peanuts if all they do is give him the very low statutory redundancy payment. And if the player isn’t happy with how much they give him, they can say “why have you chosen me rather than ......
That’s why most organisations do deals - we’ll pay this much as long as you sign an agreement saying you won’t sue us. And Saracens will then have paid even more out above the salary cap.
The players at risk need to find a good employer lawyer to represent them. Probably not from Freshfields since they will disqualified because one of their partners is now Saracens’ Chair.
Basically, Saracens now have big trouble.
The rules around redundancy also require the role to be redundant, not the person. Which is a very interesting area for a professional sports team. If you are a squad player, say a winger, it cannot be redundancy if an academy winger is elevated to the squad to fill your gap. You would have a legitimate claim for unfair dismissal (assuming you meet the minimum 2 year employment requirement). A need to replace the squad player would almost certainly necessitate the need to an enhanced compensation payment. All of which would limit the saving against cap and mean more players would need to be released to get total expenditure down.
I hope this story runs and runs. The whole thing has stunk for far too long.
A question - if I was a serious betting man and I lost a hell of a lot of money on a bet that I placed against Sarries, say wasps to beat them in the Semi, that clearly unfair as one team cheated. Is that breaking the law, can I sue the PRL or Sarries.
I think Sarries really do need to understand the Severity or they Crimes, which I don’t believe Sarries or the PRL have done. This has effected Joe Blogs and other professional rugby players
It's amazing that they claimed to be under the cap, and yet releasing three relatively average players and one big earner, none of whom were marquee, will apparently free up more than £1 million.
As plenty of others have said, it was clear they were cheating, the difference in the statements between when they were given the fine, when they declared they weren't going to appeal it, and now all reveal that it was deliberate and systematic, and extensive. And more and more I think the players were complicit.
Yes, agree about McCall. To be honest even before the cap revelations (which he must have known about) he annoyed me intensely with his hushed tones, faux reticence to celebrate, and inability not to frame any game in the context of "we can still improve" even though they'd just won 85-0.
Alex Lozowski believes that, if Saracens retain the European Champions Cup, it would rank as the club’s greatest achievement after the trauma of being docked 35 Premiership points
It's exactly that sort of narrative that really gets under my skin. It's not trauma, it's being caught cheating. Maybe the other clubs should start making more noise about the "trauma" they've endured through lack of titles/European progression/top 4 finishes/ relegation etc etc. All denied them in some part by cheating.
It's exactly that sort of narrative that really gets under my skin. It's not trauma, it's being caught cheating. Maybe the other clubs should start making more noise about the "trauma" they've endured through lack of titles/European progression/top 4 finishes/ relegation etc etc. All denied them in some part by cheating.
You can expect contact from a chap named "Nigel" from London who will doubtless want the report leaked so it can be seen that it was all a minor paperwork issue.
I was thinking this. But are the players direct employees, or are they operating as a sole employee of a ltd company that is contracted to provide a service? If the latter the redundancy laws wouldn't apply.
http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2020/01/13/saracens-and-the-salary-cap-part-iv-premiership-rugby-wage-reduction-player-release-compliance-regulations/
An interesting point to note in the Regulations relates to a player’s “Benefit Year” – i.e. a testimonial year. Payments from unconnected third parties – and, in limited circumstances, third parties connected to the club – are excluded from the salary cap calculation (Schedule 1 paragraph 2(g)). This could be a useful negotiating tool for the club to reduce the salary of a senior player, as the club could offer him a testimonial year next season to ‘make up the difference’.
Thanks for loading that article Neils.
An interesting sentence:
"The suggestion by Saracens last week was that they will not be compliant with the Regulations by 30 June, as things stand."
Backdoc: there's a difference between wrongful and unfair dismissal and they can be two separate issues.
Interesting what might arise if they do want to lose some players who have been injured - Williams, Figaro and Rhodes. The requirement to act fairly and reasonably are even more onerous in these cases and can lead to individuals claiming unfair dismissal on grounds of discrimination because of disability - with no limit on compensation. Employers have to bend over backwards, and quite rightly, to show that they have carried out a full investigation of the injuries/illnesses before coming to a decision that they have to terminate the individual's contract. We know how long it took to come to that conclusion with Sam Jones & Alex Reider.
As I suggested in another contribution, Saracens are indeed in big trouble.
Let me guess that this will all end in some kind of shabby compromise, as often happens in employee relations issues. The one that's available is stopping promotion & relegation. Saracens confess to further "mistakes", maybe get fined again, London Irish re-join the PRL on promotion and we all live happily ever afterwards.
QuoteAn interesting point to note in the Regulations relates to a player’s “Benefit Year” – i.e. a testimonial year. Payments from unconnected third parties – and, in limited circumstances, third parties connected to the club – are excluded from the salary cap calculation (Schedule 1 paragraph 2(g)). This could be a useful negotiating tool for the club to reduce the salary of a senior player, as the club could offer him a testimonial year next season to ‘make up the difference’.
So, Messrs Wigglesworth, Kruis and Barrett... please can you leave quietly with no fuss and no claims against us.
In turn, you'll get a testimonial year and trust me, it'll be worth it.
Job done.
Are there no written criteria in terms of years of service that need to be met to have a "Benefit Year"? If not, then hypothetically, any club could sign Beauden Barrett on a distinctly average salary for 2 years, the second of which is then promised as a benefit year allowing them to receive generous sponsors' donations under the guise of a testimonial.
Agree with both of the above, history should show them for the cheats they are. It's all being glossed over way too lightly in my opinion. The sport I love has been ruined to the point I can no longer watch any neutral games, as they're meaningless as long as the EA's retain an illegally assembled squad. I only watch Wasps games now, through love of my team rather than the game as a whole. There is no punishment too great for what they've done systematically over at least 3, but more likely more seasons.
If I recall, in cycling there was no winner of the TdF in the Armstrong years. I would be happy with 'No winner' being recorded for those years, I don't think the second place team should be promoted as the final would have been different had the cheats not been there. Leaving it blank / 'No Winner' would also serve as a reminder of the consequences of cheating.
Agree with both of the above, history should show them for the cheats they are. It's all being glossed over way too lightly in my opinion. The sport I love has been ruined to the point I can no longer watch any neutral games, as they're meaningless as long as the EA's retain an illegally assembled squad. I only watch Wasps games now, through love of my team rather than the game as a whole. There is no punishment too great for what they've done systematically over at least 3, but more likely more seasons.
I recently got rid of BT Sports for this very reason. I just never watched any matches other than Wasps...and then only when I was in. I told Virgin Media exactly why I was getting rid.
If I recall, in cycling there was no winner of the TdF in the Armstrong years. I would be happy with 'No winner' being recorded for those years, I don't think the second place team should be promoted as the final would have been different had the cheats not been there. Leaving it blank / 'No Winner' would also serve as a reminder of the consequences of cheating.
Get NBC Gold. Every single prem and european game plus 6N, 7's etc..
$70 a season..an utter steal when added to 20 quid a year for a VPN.
Might ease the pain
Shows how much the writer knows about the regulations since they specifically put a duty to report any possible loophole, so it is not "not checking" it is is "actively dodging".
Sickeningly pathetic article, maybe sponsored by Nige?
If I recall, in cycling there was no winner of the TdF in the Armstrong years. I would be happy with 'No winner' being recorded for those years, I don't think the second place team should be promoted as the final would have been different had the cheats not been there. Leaving it blank / 'No Winner' would also serve as a reminder of the consequences of cheating.
Absolute breeze, the app is excellent.. I run it on my Android TV via the app, you have to check depending on your TV OS. I can also cast it from my phone or tablet to the TV. At worse you can plug in or cast it from your laptop via Chrome browser to the TV.Get NBC Gold. Every single prem and european game plus 6N, 7's etc..
$70 a season..an utter steal when added to 20 quid a year for a VPN.
Might ease the pain
That's very interesting. Is that viewable via smart TV? (Sorry, I'm a bit of a technophobe) Is it easy to set up, or do you need to be a bit of an IT boffin?
Absolute breeze, the app is excellent.. I run it on my Android TV via the app, you have to check depending on your TV OS. I can also cast it from my phone or tablet to the TV. At worse you can plug in or cast it from your laptop via Chrome browser to the TV.Get NBC Gold. Every single prem and european game plus 6N, 7's etc..
$70 a season..an utter steal when added to 20 quid a year for a VPN.
Might ease the pain
That's very interesting. Is that viewable via smart TV? (Sorry, I'm a bit of a technophobe) Is it easy to set up, or do you need to be a bit of an IT boffin?
I use windscribe VPN, 20 quid a year and they have an app for all the above, just connect to the US and it works perfectly.
Honestly, its a giveaway. All games are live, then available on catchup about 45 mins after they have finished..I can't provide a negative. All the rugby I can watch for best part of 80 quid a year.
PM me if you have specific questions...I'm all up for my wasps brethren to save cash especially given the state of the game
A bit smutty for this board mate ;D
Tonight I will be dreaming that they get relegated and the prem gets ring fenced for 3 years.
That'll do nicely
Two things strike me here..IF true.
Firstly, I thought the players would all half their salaries as they love the club so much and play for the shirt, not the cheque.
Secondly, If they are 8only8 650k over as they say, then even just a 10% sweep would cover that...which you'd have thought the players would go for as a group. Tells me they'd be well over 650k if that couldnt be accomplished.
It was always going to be the question wasnt it. If your unable to offload to another team, how can you reduce cap as players have contracts..other than through pay cuts.
Please make this so...
BBC running this now.
BBC running this now.
Yep: https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51143657
Two things strike me here..IF true.You make a valid point Chilham
Firstly, I thought the players would all half their salaries as they love the club so much and play for the shirt, not the cheque.
Secondly, If they are 8only8 650k over as they say, then even just a 10% sweep would cover that...which you'd have thought the players would go for as a group. Tells me they'd be well over 650k if that couldnt be accomplished.
It was always going to be the question wasnt it. If your unable to offload to another team, how can you reduce cap as players have contracts..other than through pay cuts.
Please make this so...
I guess that if they haven't cut the salary bill 4/11ths into the season, and they were £650M over the cap at the beginning of the season, then they'd have to cut £1,137M now, to get under it by the end of the season. With players under contract, I don't see how that's going to happen. My maths might be wrong but I don't think my logic is.
I guess that if they haven't cut the salary bill 4/11ths into the season, and they were £650M over the cap at the beginning of the season, then they'd have to cut £1,137M now, to get under it by the end of the season. With players under contract, I don't see how that's going to happen. My maths might be wrong but I don't think my logic is.
Two things strike me here..IF true.
Firstly, I thought the players would all half their salaries as they love the club so much and play for the shirt, not the cheque.
Secondly, If they are 8only8 650k over as they say, then even just a 10% sweep would cover that...which you'd have thought the players would go for as a group. Tells me they'd be well over 650k if that couldnt be accomplished.
It was always going to be the question wasnt it. If your unable to offload to another team, how can you reduce cap as players have contracts..other than through pay cuts.
Please make this so...
I guess that if they haven't cut the salary bill 4/11ths into the season, and they were £650M over the cap at the beginning of the season, then they'd have to cut £1,137M now, to get under it by the end of the season. With players under contract, I don't see how that's going to happen. My maths might be wrong but I don't think my logic is.
This suggests the owners were quiet for a reason. It was said in November that their January meeting would be crucial and it looks like being that way.
Also was the much quote figure of £650k not just the trigger point and the transgression may well be well over that figure. Thus the levelling up necessary could be far more.
Two things strike me here..IF true.
Firstly, I thought the players would all half their salaries as they love the club so much and play for the shirt, not the cheque.
Secondly, If they are 8only8 650k over as they say, then even just a 10% sweep would cover that...which you'd have thought the players would go for as a group. Tells me they'd be well over 650k if that couldnt be accomplished.
It was always going to be the question wasnt it. If your unable to offload to another team, how can you reduce cap as players have contracts..other than through pay cuts.
Please make this so...
I guess that if they haven't cut the salary bill 4/11ths into the season, and they were £650M over the cap at the beginning of the season, then they'd have to cut £1,137M now, to get under it by the end of the season. With players under contract, I don't see how that's going to happen. My maths might be wrong but I don't think my logic is.
On the basis that they're £650k over, with the salary cap year being in its seventh month, they'd need to offload players on a combined annual salary of £1,560,000. That's before you factor in redundancy packages.
I struggle to see how they can do it without spiking several player's drinks with cocaine and then calling in UK Anti-Doping...
Is there a salary cap in the Championship?
England would be the big losers if they are relegated and the squad breaks up. Some of the big names might have to look to France to get the sort of salaries they now earn and the national set up would lose the benefit of them playing regularly together for the same club. Plenty of people are clamouring for fairness and justice but it could come at a cost to national success.
If the figures in the Times are anything like correct then they are going to need to find about double that as they were £1.3m over last season.Two things strike me here..IF true.
Firstly, I thought the players would all half their salaries as they love the club so much and play for the shirt, not the cheque.
Secondly, If they are 8only8 650k over as they say, then even just a 10% sweep would cover that...which you'd have thought the players would go for as a group. Tells me they'd be well over 650k if that couldnt be accomplished.
It was always going to be the question wasnt it. If your unable to offload to another team, how can you reduce cap as players have contracts..other than through pay cuts.
Please make this so...
I guess that if they haven't cut the salary bill 4/11ths into the season, and they were £650M over the cap at the beginning of the season, then they'd have to cut £1,137M now, to get under it by the end of the season. With players under contract, I don't see how that's going to happen. My maths might be wrong but I don't think my logic is.
On the basis that they're £650k over, with the salary cap year being in its seventh month, they'd need to offload players on a combined annual salary of £1,560,000. That's before you factor in redundancy packages.
I struggle to see how they can do it without spiking several player's drinks with cocaine and then calling in UK Anti-Doping...
Of course, it's time (seven months), not matches (8 of 22+).
Some of the big names might have to look to France to get the sort of salaries they now earn
Latest "excuse"QuoteEngland would be the big losers if they are relegated and the squad breaks up. Some of the big names might have to look to France to get the sort of salaries they now earn and the national set up would lose the benefit of them playing regularly together for the same club. Plenty of people are clamouring for fairness and justice but it could come at a cost to national success.
So cheating's ok if it benefits the national side......ffs
Latest "excuse"Not just London...it is saying any international should be allowed to cheat.QuoteEngland would be the big losers if they are relegated and the squad breaks up. Some of the big names might have to look to France to get the sort of salaries they now earn and the national set up would lose the benefit of them playing regularly together for the same club. Plenty of people are clamouring for fairness and justice but it could come at a cost to national success.
So cheating's ok if it benefits the national side......ffs
So if Mo Farah or Bradley Wiggins are found to have been on drugs during London 2012, then that's OK, because it was to the benefit of the British Olympic team and the overall success of the London Olympics? Glad that's been cleared up.
If the figures in the Times are anything like correct then they are going to need to find about double that as they were £1.3m over last season.Two things strike me here..IF true.
Firstly, I thought the players would all half their salaries as they love the club so much and play for the shirt, not the cheque.
Secondly, If they are 8only8 650k over as they say, then even just a 10% sweep would cover that...which you'd have thought the players would go for as a group. Tells me they'd be well over 650k if that couldnt be accomplished.
It was always going to be the question wasnt it. If your unable to offload to another team, how can you reduce cap as players have contracts..other than through pay cuts.
Please make this so...
I guess that if they haven't cut the salary bill 4/11ths into the season, and they were £650M over the cap at the beginning of the season, then they'd have to cut £1,137M now, to get under it by the end of the season. With players under contract, I don't see how that's going to happen. My maths might be wrong but I don't think my logic is.
On the basis that they're £650k over, with the salary cap year being in its seventh month, they'd need to offload players on a combined annual salary of £1,560,000. That's before you factor in redundancy packages.
I struggle to see how they can do it without spiking several player's drinks with cocaine and then calling in UK Anti-Doping...
Of course, it's time (seven months), not matches (8 of 22+).
For what it's worth, I think the players will take the pay cut (although it will be massive) and then Wray will pay them off on the side.
But, if the England contingent call on their relegation get out clauses, who would we like to sign for Wasps?
It's not just you.
But, if the England contingent call on their relegation get out clauses, who would we like to sign for Wasps?
This might just be me, but, I don't want any of their internationals as I don't like their attitude. But that's just me
But, if the England contingent call on their relegation get out clauses, who would we like to sign for Wasps?
This might just be me, but, I don't want any of their internationals as I don't like their attitude. But that's just me
+1 - too much smugness
But, if the England contingent call on their relegation get out clauses, who would we like to sign for Wasps?
This might just be me, but, I don't want any of their internationals as I don't like their attitude. But that's just me
+1 - too much smugness
But is that not just a product of the environment? In a different environment could they be turned from "The dark Side"? :)
Billy and Loz always came across as good lads when they were with us. And Elliot Daly was quite a shy, modest young man before he became established in the England squad and fell in with a dodgy crowd!
Rifleman: Wray’s family still own Saracens.Good point.
But, if the England contingent call on their relegation get out clauses, who would we like to sign for Wasps?
This might just be me, but, I don't want any of their internationals as I don't like their attitude. But that's just me
Just seen on EAs board the minor contractors/sponsors have been called to an 11am meetingI wonder what Allianz are now feeling about this and also Barnet council who have agreed a £20m loan to develop the stadium.
But, if the England contingent call on their relegation get out clauses, who would we like to sign for Wasps?
This might just be me, but, I don't want any of their internationals as I don't like their attitude. But that's just me
Latest "excuse"QuoteEngland would be the big losers if they are relegated and the squad breaks up. Some of the big names might have to look to France to get the sort of salaries they now earn and the national set up would lose the benefit of them playing regularly together for the same club. Plenty of people are clamouring for fairness and justice but it could come at a cost to national success.
So cheating's ok if it benefits the national side......ffs
Of course, then they can play the "winning against adversity" card.
Juts saw that Brendan Venter tweeted about 3 hours ago:
"The thing i am now looking fwd to most is when the Daily Mail latches on to the fact that various other clubs have been doing some creative accounting to stay within the cap. Will all the haters stay loyal to their moral compasses. This story far from over yet."
Of course, then they can play the "winning against adversity" card.
Juts saw that Brendan Venter tweeted about 3 hours ago:
"The thing i am now looking fwd to most is when the Daily Mail latches on to the fact that various other clubs have been doing some creative accounting to stay within the cap. Will all the haters stay loyal to their moral compasses. This story far from over yet."
With all this unfolding, will it not be the case that the saracens brand becomes so toxic that the clubs major sponsors will withdraw all funding. They will then struggle to find replacement benefactors. This then presents itself as a major hurdle to any party considering investing in the club.
With all this unfolding, will it not be the case that the saracens brand becomes so toxic that the clubs major sponsors will withdraw all funding. They will then struggle to find replacement benefactors. This then presents itself as a major hurdle to any party considering investing in the club.
One can only hope so
He's probably right, based on the info we have from when he was at Saracens.
At that time, we know that a couple of clubs were in breach of the cap - and they were just the ones that were caught.
The new guy at Saracens even said that they previously didn't care about the cap because so many clubs were exploiting holes in it.... but that now everyone seems to be obeying the cap, so they need to as well.
When Ventner was last in the prem, there probably was a number of clubs doing "stuff".... whether they still are or not is a different matter
From the Telegraph just now:
The Rugby Football Union have indicated that there is nothing to stop England head coach Eddie Jones from selecting players in the Championship, but whether matches against the likes of Ampthill and Hartpury would be sufficient preparation for international rugby is entirely another matter. Particularly in the season leading into the Lions tour to South Africa, those leading players face a stark test of their loyalty to each other and the club.
Not sure another points deduction is appropriate/sufficient.
If there's still a chance they might still stay up, then they'll manage it, by playing their (Still!) salary cap breaking squad. Automatic relegation would be a more effective punishment for the whole affair.
Maybe play out the remainder of their fixtures, Sarries can earn no points, but opposition teams can, to avoid the matches being dead rubbers.
From the Telegraph just now:
The Rugby Football Union have indicated that there is nothing to stop England head coach Eddie Jones from selecting players in the Championship, but whether matches against the likes of Ampthill and Hartpury would be sufficient preparation for international rugby is entirely another matter. Particularly in the season leading into the Lions tour to South Africa, those leading players face a stark test of their loyalty to each other and the club.
They cannot continue to play in the premiership this season. If you play at half-cock you are more likely to be injured and there is no spectacle in seeing an uninvolved team.+1
There seems to be two outcomes being discussed; another 35 point deduction or an automatic relegation. It's a bit of a mess. Really all they can do is relegate them now, wipe all their results so far and then agree if they can play their games as friendlies or not. Anything else will leave the league skewed.
Sent from my LYA-L29 using Tapatalk
Here's a thought: all other prem clubs refuse to sign the Sarries players that they need to offload, causing them to be over the cap this season and incur a further penalty, and therefore relegation.
I don't think this would ever actually happen, and Sarries cold find other places to offload the players, but an interesting thought.
Presumably this means they will sink regardless of how many points they make up through the remainder of the season. As none of the other prem clubs can be relegated, this will give us a taster of what ring fencing may do to the bottom clubs' games. In so much as none of them will have to fight to avoid relegation, us included. Could be interesting.
Also, are we certain that only 1 club can be relegated? So we know Saracens are going down, but might the side that finishes bottom, if it's not Saracens, also go down?
I'm in favour of them having their titles stripped. It happens in most other sports. Athletics, cycling and I believe M Schumacher was written out of the records for one F1 World Championship.
What EPCR does is another matter as technically the salary cap doesn't apply.
Any chance of PRL banning plastic pitches during next season. 😁
It ought to have been sorted sooner - as the info was all out there - easy enough to find by a journalist.....
Also, are we certain that only 1 club can be relegated? So we know Saracens are going down, but might the side that finishes bottom, if it's not Saracens, also go down?
The last time there was more than 70 points between first and last place was the 2014-2015 season, so I'd say the chances of any club finishing below Sarries with their -70 points is pretty unlikely.
Also, are we certain that only 1 club can be relegated? So we know Saracens are going down, but might the side that finishes bottom, if it's not Saracens, also go down?
The last time there was more than 70 points between first and last place was the 2014-2015 season, so I'd say the chances of any club finishing below Sarries with their -70 points is pretty unlikely.
But the wording is not about a second 35 point deduction, but straight automatic relegation. I don't think it's likely another team would be relegated, I'd just like it confirmed
He is behaving like a madman, he is ignoring >5 years of systematic financial doping, of course they were dominant, they were cheating.
I disliked them intensely prior to this scandal, back slapping and laughing every time they won a penalty. Now it borders on hatred, I shouldn't feel like this as it is only a game, but a game I love and they have tainted it. My view is that remaining PRL 12 should vote to expel them, they have shown no regard for fair play, or respected any other other clubs, their supporters, most of their players or staff. I hope they fold and disappear, as this sad state of affairs is beyond the pale. Good riddance.
McCall says that the squad will be broken up after relegation.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51169248 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51169248)
From the BBC.
Would McCall also be looking to go elsewhere?
I'm wondering if there is more to emerge though as Sarries have refused to allow an independent accountancy firm go through all their records.. which implies there is more that is being hidden. That could be related to the salary cap or it might be something that HMRC would be interested in.