Always a Wasp
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
2
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: The Pointless Thread?
« on: November 28, 2019, 12:33:46 PM »
I totally agree on the Endless Thread. Quins had one on their Sportsnetwork site for years and it was bloody annoying. Please park.
I think the Sarries thread may become an endless one as well.
I don't give a stuff about who they are playing as long as they lose so comments on who played well/badly irrelevent to Wasps unless against us.
I think the Sarries thread may become an endless one as well.
I don't give a stuff about who they are playing as long as they lose so comments on who played well/badly irrelevent to Wasps unless against us.
3
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Two Wasps in England 45 man U-20 squad
« on: November 27, 2019, 12:26:37 PM »5
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Rugby can’t move on until Nigel Wray answers questions over Saracens
« on: November 26, 2019, 10:28:34 AM »
From today's Times
Rugby can’t move on until Nigel Wray answers questions over Saracens
owen slot, chief rugby correspondent
Chief Rugby Correspondent
Yesterday in The Times, Tony Rowe, the Exeter Chiefs chairman, kind of declared war on Saracens. He said that he would be consulting his lawyers. He wants to know, he said, if he has a legal case against them. This is how bad it has got. Mistrust and hostility in the Gallagher Premiership has reached a rabid high.
Does Rowe have a case? In the past two Premiership finals, his Chiefs were beaten by a Saracens team who, we now know, were in breach of the salary cap. How much of a loss to income and value have Exeter experienced by being denied the opportunity to become double champions — that is Rowe’s point and thus his question to his lawyers is: is that actionable?
I started off by trying to estimate the rough loss of income. I asked people close to these things (not at Exeter). As a rough guideline, your merchandise sales go up £150,000 in the year you are champions; your season-ticket sales will go up too and deliver an uplift of about £200,000 to £400,000. Sponsorship is a harder guessing game, but some of these deals have win bonuses. Clearly winning two titles would attract further sponsors, and of course the uplift would vary from club to club. A reasoned and conservative assessment is that a single Premiership title would be worth at least £600,000. And Exeter lost two of them.
Yet if Exeter were successful with a legal case, then what is next? Gloucester, last season, finished third and were thus rewarded with a play-off game away to Saracens. What if Saracens had been weaker last season and Gloucester had got the home tie? That would have been worth £100,000 to them.
What if Newcastle Falcons had beaten Saracens with two bonus-point victories? They would have survived relegation and what would that have been worth?
So if Exeter establish a legal precedent, where does it end? It would probably not have come to this if Saracens had shown more contrition and if Exeter and other clubs were convinced that Saracens were not transgressing again.
Instead, we come to round five of the Premiership this weekend with the competition suffering from a massive credibility crisis. This is unlikely to be resolved unless these four questions can be answered.
Can we believe that Saracens are under the cap this season?
Saracens insist they are. They said this last season and we now know that they weren’t. They were not only found guilty of salary cap breaches in the past three seasons, but in the 2013-14 season too. We don’t actually know when they were last under the cap. So why should they be believed?
Look at the numbers. Last season they were at least £600,000 over the cap. They have since recruited three internationals: Elliot Daly (big salary), Jack Singleton (less so) and Rhys Carré (definitely not). Five internationals have left the club: Schalk Burger, Marcelo Bosch, David Strettle, Dominic Day and Christian Tolofua. That has definitely reduced the spend. Everyone would love to know if it has reduced it enough.
What about the controversial co-investments? These are the business agreements that Nigel Wray, the owner, has made with certain leading players and we are led to believe that no such investments have been made for this season. That clearly reduces the numbers but is that good enough?
If, for instance, Wray has underpaid Player X by £250,000 a year over three years on his salary, but front-loaded his contract with a £750,000 co-investment in year one, should the co-investment only come into the audit for the year it was made? This is what concerns Saracens’ rival clubs. Is that not cheating the spirit of the salary cap agreement?
One club administrator went further. He said: “What we don’t know is worse than what we do know.” This is a reference to many aspects of player payment, but particularly housing arrangements.
If you listen to The Rugby Pod podcast, on which they have twice earnestly debated the salary cap scandal, they poke fun at Jim Hamilton, a former Saracen, over the ownership of property in north London. The suggestion is that he was given a free house. This kind of joke has been around for years.
I spoke to another ex-Saracen last week and he was telling me — “Rather than rent, Nigel gives you a home. That makes you happier” — then put the phone down.
For Saracens to win back credibility, it would be handy to put this joke to bed. The best solution may be the one we are reporting on the back page today: Premier Rugby Limited (PRL) is asking Saracens to open their books for an extraordinary mid-season audit. If Saracens refuse, PRL rugby will try to force their hand.
Did Saracens really breach the cap unintentionally?
Wray insists that he did. In his first statement on the issue, he referred to the judgment by the legal panel that “acknowledged” Saracens “did not deliberately attempt to breach the salary cap.” From a 103-page judgment, this feels like rather selective quoting. Only in later statements does Wray add that Saracens were found to be “reckless”.
The only face-to-face discussion I have had on the salary cap with Wray was in an interview in 2015 when he said: “At the end of the day, people don’t obey bad law.”
I also asked if there was to be an investigation that showed Saracens had broken the salary cap, would you feel embarrassed or would it just be annoying to have been found to have breached what you call a bad law? “No,” he said, “I wouldn’t feel embarrassed because this system is unworkable and it must be changed.”
Then, this year, I spoke to the South Africans who formerly owned 50 per cent of the club. They had been concerned about whether Saracens were breaching the cap and had made it clear that if the club were neither under the cap nor within the spirit of it, then they would leave. They said that when they asked questions, the explanations were that the cap rules were open to interpretation. Their concern with the cap was a major part of their reason to sell.
If Saracens could actually show the rest of the league that their breach was really made in error, they have to show us some evidence. Wray’s word does clearly not suffice.
Why not publish the legal judgment?
This has become a big focus of the debate. The report has not even been circulated to the other 12 shareholding clubs — the 11 from the top flight and Newcastle Falcons of the Championship. If a chairman or chief executive from another club wishes to read the (redacted) report, he has to go to the offices of PRL in Twickenham. His time with the report is supervised. No notes or photos are permitted.
If Saracens want to be believed, then this report should be published. If this Premiership season is to retain any credibility, the report should be made public. For now we — the players, the fans, the game — are stuck not knowing what to believe.
The PRL agreement is to maintain confidentiality. In this case, this confidentiality is stripping its competition of its integrity. There are solutions. If all 13 clubs vote to release the report, it would be hard to stop it. Of course, this needs Saracens’ vote.
Saracens have at least said that they would give it. If that is the case, they could share the full details of their payment structure independently. That would be taking the initiative rather than being obliged by Premier Rugby to open their books again.
Why no apology?
It is the lack of contrition that has caused so much widespread anger. If Saracens really twisted the outcome of a joint competition three seasons in succession and without meaning to, then why not apologise?
If Saracens were to recognise the cost to others — the loss of revenue at Exeter, the cost to every club, the cost to the competition’s credibility, the loss of opportunity for other players and other fans to have a fair shot at the kind of glory and fulfilment and days in the sun that Saracens have enjoyed — then they would go a considerable way to drawing a line under the past, to rebooting the Premiership and giving the game a chance to believe again.
Rugby can’t move on until Nigel Wray answers questions over Saracens
owen slot, chief rugby correspondent
Chief Rugby Correspondent
Yesterday in The Times, Tony Rowe, the Exeter Chiefs chairman, kind of declared war on Saracens. He said that he would be consulting his lawyers. He wants to know, he said, if he has a legal case against them. This is how bad it has got. Mistrust and hostility in the Gallagher Premiership has reached a rabid high.
Does Rowe have a case? In the past two Premiership finals, his Chiefs were beaten by a Saracens team who, we now know, were in breach of the salary cap. How much of a loss to income and value have Exeter experienced by being denied the opportunity to become double champions — that is Rowe’s point and thus his question to his lawyers is: is that actionable?
I started off by trying to estimate the rough loss of income. I asked people close to these things (not at Exeter). As a rough guideline, your merchandise sales go up £150,000 in the year you are champions; your season-ticket sales will go up too and deliver an uplift of about £200,000 to £400,000. Sponsorship is a harder guessing game, but some of these deals have win bonuses. Clearly winning two titles would attract further sponsors, and of course the uplift would vary from club to club. A reasoned and conservative assessment is that a single Premiership title would be worth at least £600,000. And Exeter lost two of them.
Yet if Exeter were successful with a legal case, then what is next? Gloucester, last season, finished third and were thus rewarded with a play-off game away to Saracens. What if Saracens had been weaker last season and Gloucester had got the home tie? That would have been worth £100,000 to them.
What if Newcastle Falcons had beaten Saracens with two bonus-point victories? They would have survived relegation and what would that have been worth?
So if Exeter establish a legal precedent, where does it end? It would probably not have come to this if Saracens had shown more contrition and if Exeter and other clubs were convinced that Saracens were not transgressing again.
Instead, we come to round five of the Premiership this weekend with the competition suffering from a massive credibility crisis. This is unlikely to be resolved unless these four questions can be answered.
Can we believe that Saracens are under the cap this season?
Saracens insist they are. They said this last season and we now know that they weren’t. They were not only found guilty of salary cap breaches in the past three seasons, but in the 2013-14 season too. We don’t actually know when they were last under the cap. So why should they be believed?
Look at the numbers. Last season they were at least £600,000 over the cap. They have since recruited three internationals: Elliot Daly (big salary), Jack Singleton (less so) and Rhys Carré (definitely not). Five internationals have left the club: Schalk Burger, Marcelo Bosch, David Strettle, Dominic Day and Christian Tolofua. That has definitely reduced the spend. Everyone would love to know if it has reduced it enough.
What about the controversial co-investments? These are the business agreements that Nigel Wray, the owner, has made with certain leading players and we are led to believe that no such investments have been made for this season. That clearly reduces the numbers but is that good enough?
If, for instance, Wray has underpaid Player X by £250,000 a year over three years on his salary, but front-loaded his contract with a £750,000 co-investment in year one, should the co-investment only come into the audit for the year it was made? This is what concerns Saracens’ rival clubs. Is that not cheating the spirit of the salary cap agreement?
One club administrator went further. He said: “What we don’t know is worse than what we do know.” This is a reference to many aspects of player payment, but particularly housing arrangements.
If you listen to The Rugby Pod podcast, on which they have twice earnestly debated the salary cap scandal, they poke fun at Jim Hamilton, a former Saracen, over the ownership of property in north London. The suggestion is that he was given a free house. This kind of joke has been around for years.
I spoke to another ex-Saracen last week and he was telling me — “Rather than rent, Nigel gives you a home. That makes you happier” — then put the phone down.
For Saracens to win back credibility, it would be handy to put this joke to bed. The best solution may be the one we are reporting on the back page today: Premier Rugby Limited (PRL) is asking Saracens to open their books for an extraordinary mid-season audit. If Saracens refuse, PRL rugby will try to force their hand.
Did Saracens really breach the cap unintentionally?
Wray insists that he did. In his first statement on the issue, he referred to the judgment by the legal panel that “acknowledged” Saracens “did not deliberately attempt to breach the salary cap.” From a 103-page judgment, this feels like rather selective quoting. Only in later statements does Wray add that Saracens were found to be “reckless”.
The only face-to-face discussion I have had on the salary cap with Wray was in an interview in 2015 when he said: “At the end of the day, people don’t obey bad law.”
I also asked if there was to be an investigation that showed Saracens had broken the salary cap, would you feel embarrassed or would it just be annoying to have been found to have breached what you call a bad law? “No,” he said, “I wouldn’t feel embarrassed because this system is unworkable and it must be changed.”
Then, this year, I spoke to the South Africans who formerly owned 50 per cent of the club. They had been concerned about whether Saracens were breaching the cap and had made it clear that if the club were neither under the cap nor within the spirit of it, then they would leave. They said that when they asked questions, the explanations were that the cap rules were open to interpretation. Their concern with the cap was a major part of their reason to sell.
If Saracens could actually show the rest of the league that their breach was really made in error, they have to show us some evidence. Wray’s word does clearly not suffice.
Why not publish the legal judgment?
This has become a big focus of the debate. The report has not even been circulated to the other 12 shareholding clubs — the 11 from the top flight and Newcastle Falcons of the Championship. If a chairman or chief executive from another club wishes to read the (redacted) report, he has to go to the offices of PRL in Twickenham. His time with the report is supervised. No notes or photos are permitted.
If Saracens want to be believed, then this report should be published. If this Premiership season is to retain any credibility, the report should be made public. For now we — the players, the fans, the game — are stuck not knowing what to believe.
The PRL agreement is to maintain confidentiality. In this case, this confidentiality is stripping its competition of its integrity. There are solutions. If all 13 clubs vote to release the report, it would be hard to stop it. Of course, this needs Saracens’ vote.
Saracens have at least said that they would give it. If that is the case, they could share the full details of their payment structure independently. That would be taking the initiative rather than being obliged by Premier Rugby to open their books again.
Why no apology?
It is the lack of contrition that has caused so much widespread anger. If Saracens really twisted the outcome of a joint competition three seasons in succession and without meaning to, then why not apologise?
If Saracens were to recognise the cost to others — the loss of revenue at Exeter, the cost to every club, the cost to the competition’s credibility, the loss of opportunity for other players and other fans to have a fair shot at the kind of glory and fulfilment and days in the sun that Saracens have enjoyed — then they would go a considerable way to drawing a line under the past, to rebooting the Premiership and giving the game a chance to believe again.
6
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Something needs to be done about Europe's secondary cup,
« on: November 25, 2019, 04:13:09 PM »
From the Torygraph
Something needs to be done about Europe's secondary cup, as clubs view it as an irritant
• BRIAN MOORE
It is safe to say that the first two rounds of the Champions and Challenge Cups, usually the jewels in the crown of European club rugby, have been underwhelming. Whether this is simply a case of natural post-World Cup blues is a moot point. Suffice to say that the tournaments that usually show the best of northern hemisphere club rugby have stuttered and stumbled, with only the odd game providing the usual thrills and quality we have come to associate with European rugby.
You can certainly see the effect of players having to be withheld because of prescribed rest after the World Cup, but in some cases you detect other reasons. It is clear that European Professional Club Rugby is going to have to do something about the secondary cup competition, the Challenge Cup. Rather like football’s Europa Cup, this is now seen as an irritant to many of the qualifiers and certainly of secondary priority to success or survival in the relevant domestic leagues.
I am going to highlight the Cardiff v Leicester game, but I am not singling out those clubs for anything other than illustrative purposes. There were similar matches over the whole of the weekend. If you had the misfortune to watch that game, you will have seen a handful of Cardiff’s best and almost none of the Tigers’ star players. What you make of this will depend on your perspective, but one point cannot be overlooked: if you bill this as a bona fide European Cup tie you are short-changing paying fans, sponsors and broadcasters, all of whom pay to support rugby, when you produce the sort of dross served up last Saturday night at the Arms Park.
Some will shrug their shoulders and say they have more important considerations, but they should remember a couple of important points. If one of these games is your first experience of rugby, as a fan and especially a sponsor who has invited customers, you are going to think long and hard about repeating the venture. Likewise, when you are a minority sport fighting for attention and your product is, in this case, not being seen on terrestrial TV, you will not attract any new viewers if this is what they see. The only way you can justify the absence of so many top players is if a tournament is clearly agreed, by all concerned, to be one in which it is acceptable to blood fringe and development players.
What EPCR does about this is problematic. Sanctioning teams for playing under-strength squads would only increase club resistance to the whole concept. There is a point at which one or more of the three participating leagues would refuse to cooperate. The Challenge Cup already gives one team automatic qualification for the Champions Cup but if you increased this to two places, to try to incentivise participants, which of the Pro14, Top 14 or Premiership competitions will give up one of their qualifying places? With domestic survival an absolute in England and France, because of the huge financial ramifications of relegation, would even that incentive be effective for their clubs?
To give a bit of balance, it has not all been bad. Saracens’ domination of the Ospreys was complete, even accounting for the number of missing payers from the Welsh side. When you consider that Elliot Daly was one of their star players at full-back, you can see their selectors having to shuffle their selections to keep three top-class No 15s happy. The beauty for Saracens is that Daly, Liam Williams and Alex Goode can all play in other positions, which softens this conundrum.
Exeter continued their good start in Europe by hammering Glasgow, in a strange game. If you look at the possession statistics without having watched the game, you would conclude that Glasgow must have had at least a reasonable amount of the game. In reality, they had so many phases of play in their own 22 that they rarely threatened Exeter’s line.
This was a baffling performance from Glasgow and tactically naive; if there is one team likely to maintain patience in attack and defence, it is Exeter. Simple attacking patterns were never going to work against a defence that tackled and realigned with alacrity.
As final asides, two Anglo-French games ended up with red cards for the French sides. Sale should have gained a bonus-point win over La Rochelle, while Gloucester battled hard away at Montpellier to go down by three points. With a bit more luck and better decision-making they could have done what few sides do: leave the Altrad Stadium with a win.
It is too early for sensible predictions, but one that is likely to turn out half reasonable is that whoever beat Toulouse might well win the lot.
Something needs to be done about Europe's secondary cup, as clubs view it as an irritant
• BRIAN MOORE
It is safe to say that the first two rounds of the Champions and Challenge Cups, usually the jewels in the crown of European club rugby, have been underwhelming. Whether this is simply a case of natural post-World Cup blues is a moot point. Suffice to say that the tournaments that usually show the best of northern hemisphere club rugby have stuttered and stumbled, with only the odd game providing the usual thrills and quality we have come to associate with European rugby.
You can certainly see the effect of players having to be withheld because of prescribed rest after the World Cup, but in some cases you detect other reasons. It is clear that European Professional Club Rugby is going to have to do something about the secondary cup competition, the Challenge Cup. Rather like football’s Europa Cup, this is now seen as an irritant to many of the qualifiers and certainly of secondary priority to success or survival in the relevant domestic leagues.
I am going to highlight the Cardiff v Leicester game, but I am not singling out those clubs for anything other than illustrative purposes. There were similar matches over the whole of the weekend. If you had the misfortune to watch that game, you will have seen a handful of Cardiff’s best and almost none of the Tigers’ star players. What you make of this will depend on your perspective, but one point cannot be overlooked: if you bill this as a bona fide European Cup tie you are short-changing paying fans, sponsors and broadcasters, all of whom pay to support rugby, when you produce the sort of dross served up last Saturday night at the Arms Park.
Some will shrug their shoulders and say they have more important considerations, but they should remember a couple of important points. If one of these games is your first experience of rugby, as a fan and especially a sponsor who has invited customers, you are going to think long and hard about repeating the venture. Likewise, when you are a minority sport fighting for attention and your product is, in this case, not being seen on terrestrial TV, you will not attract any new viewers if this is what they see. The only way you can justify the absence of so many top players is if a tournament is clearly agreed, by all concerned, to be one in which it is acceptable to blood fringe and development players.
What EPCR does about this is problematic. Sanctioning teams for playing under-strength squads would only increase club resistance to the whole concept. There is a point at which one or more of the three participating leagues would refuse to cooperate. The Challenge Cup already gives one team automatic qualification for the Champions Cup but if you increased this to two places, to try to incentivise participants, which of the Pro14, Top 14 or Premiership competitions will give up one of their qualifying places? With domestic survival an absolute in England and France, because of the huge financial ramifications of relegation, would even that incentive be effective for their clubs?
To give a bit of balance, it has not all been bad. Saracens’ domination of the Ospreys was complete, even accounting for the number of missing payers from the Welsh side. When you consider that Elliot Daly was one of their star players at full-back, you can see their selectors having to shuffle their selections to keep three top-class No 15s happy. The beauty for Saracens is that Daly, Liam Williams and Alex Goode can all play in other positions, which softens this conundrum.
Exeter continued their good start in Europe by hammering Glasgow, in a strange game. If you look at the possession statistics without having watched the game, you would conclude that Glasgow must have had at least a reasonable amount of the game. In reality, they had so many phases of play in their own 22 that they rarely threatened Exeter’s line.
This was a baffling performance from Glasgow and tactically naive; if there is one team likely to maintain patience in attack and defence, it is Exeter. Simple attacking patterns were never going to work against a defence that tackled and realigned with alacrity.
As final asides, two Anglo-French games ended up with red cards for the French sides. Sale should have gained a bonus-point win over La Rochelle, while Gloucester battled hard away at Montpellier to go down by three points. With a bit more luck and better decision-making they could have done what few sides do: leave the Altrad Stadium with a win.
It is too early for sensible predictions, but one that is likely to turn out half reasonable is that whoever beat Toulouse might well win the lot.
7
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: Exeter Rumour v EAs
« on: November 25, 2019, 02:24:42 PM »
Exeter Chiefs plan to sue Saracens over salary cap scandal
Owen Slot, Chief Rugby Correspondent
November 25 2019, 12:01am,
The Times
Exeter Chiefs are investigating taking legal action against Saracens to recover revenue they lost as a result of losing two Premiership titles to a team who have since been found in breach of the salary-cap rules.
Tony Rowe, the Exeter chairman, has branded Nigel Wray, his opposite number at Saracens, a “cheater” and is due to meet lawyers today to discuss whether Exeter have a legal case.
Saracens were deducted 35 points and fined £5.36 million for breaking the salary cap in each of the past three seasons. In two of those seasons, Saracens won the Premiership title with victory in the Twickenham final over Exeter.
Exeter won the title in 2017, beating Wasps in the final. If they had won those next two finals against Saracens, they would have become the first team to be champions three years in a row since Wasps (2003 to 2005). “There would have been an impact on our commercial value,” Rowe said.
The value of any possible compensation is hard to quantify. The Premiership winners take a cash prize of £120,000 and the runners-up receive £90,000, but the £30,000 disparity would be just the start of any case that Exeter may make. It is extra value in sponsorships that would be far more significant.
“We have got to look to see if we have got any grounds for recompense from Saracens for cheating,” Rowe said. “We’re not sure whether we would have won. You can’t possibly know. The reality is we were cheated out of the chance to win two cups.
“[Wray] is a cheater. I believe he brought the sport into disrepute and he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. It’s absolutely ridiculous: he is still muttering away in the press about how hard done by he is. All he has done is brought the sport into disrepute.”
Saracens have beaten Exeter in three of the past four Premiership finalsSaracens have beaten Exeter in three of the past four Premiership finals
JASON CAIRNDUFF/REUTERS
Rowe said that he regrets that Exeter and the other Premiership clubs agreed four years ago to keep confidential another salary-cap breach by Saracens.
“They were put on trust that they wouldn’t do it again,” he said. “I remember the meeting. All the chairmen agreed to work by the rules and the spirit of the rules.
“The game is built on respect. It goes to show that Nigel’s got no respect for any other club.”
Owen Slot, Chief Rugby Correspondent
November 25 2019, 12:01am,
The Times
Exeter Chiefs are investigating taking legal action against Saracens to recover revenue they lost as a result of losing two Premiership titles to a team who have since been found in breach of the salary-cap rules.
Tony Rowe, the Exeter chairman, has branded Nigel Wray, his opposite number at Saracens, a “cheater” and is due to meet lawyers today to discuss whether Exeter have a legal case.
Saracens were deducted 35 points and fined £5.36 million for breaking the salary cap in each of the past three seasons. In two of those seasons, Saracens won the Premiership title with victory in the Twickenham final over Exeter.
Exeter won the title in 2017, beating Wasps in the final. If they had won those next two finals against Saracens, they would have become the first team to be champions three years in a row since Wasps (2003 to 2005). “There would have been an impact on our commercial value,” Rowe said.
The value of any possible compensation is hard to quantify. The Premiership winners take a cash prize of £120,000 and the runners-up receive £90,000, but the £30,000 disparity would be just the start of any case that Exeter may make. It is extra value in sponsorships that would be far more significant.
“We have got to look to see if we have got any grounds for recompense from Saracens for cheating,” Rowe said. “We’re not sure whether we would have won. You can’t possibly know. The reality is we were cheated out of the chance to win two cups.
“[Wray] is a cheater. I believe he brought the sport into disrepute and he shouldn’t be allowed to get away with it. It’s absolutely ridiculous: he is still muttering away in the press about how hard done by he is. All he has done is brought the sport into disrepute.”
Saracens have beaten Exeter in three of the past four Premiership finalsSaracens have beaten Exeter in three of the past four Premiership finals
JASON CAIRNDUFF/REUTERS
Rowe said that he regrets that Exeter and the other Premiership clubs agreed four years ago to keep confidential another salary-cap breach by Saracens.
“They were put on trust that they wouldn’t do it again,” he said. “I remember the meeting. All the chairmen agreed to work by the rules and the spirit of the rules.
“The game is built on respect. It goes to show that Nigel’s got no respect for any other club.”
10
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: A question about Sarries
« on: November 19, 2019, 10:58:24 AM »
Saracens’ former owners feared salary cap breach
Owen Slot, Chief Rugby Correspondent
March 5 2019, 12:00am,
Wray, the Saracens owner, owns businesses with leading players including Farrell and the Vunipola brothersDAVID ROGERS/GETTY IMAGES
Share
Save
The South African former co-owners of Saracens sold their 50 per cent shareholding in spring last year in part because they were uncomfortable about whether the leading club in England were obeying the Premiership salary cap rules.
Saracens’ adherence to the salary cap was being investigated yesterday after a newspaper exposé that found that Nigel Wray, who is now the club’s sole owner, had entered into business partnerships with some of the club’s leading England players, including Owen Farrell and the Vunipola brothers.
Premiership Rugby said yesterday that it would “look closely” at these business partnerships with Wray, the 70-year-old property investor whose personal wealth is estimated at about £315 million, to ensure that there had been no breach of their salary cap rules.
Saracens said that all the details of the business partnerships that were in the Daily Mail yesterday had already been declared to the Premiership salary manager.
The South Africans, who owned half of the club, were concerned about the club and whether it was breaching the cap. They made it clear that if the club were not under the cap, and within the spirit of the cap, then they would leave.
When they did sell last year, after nine years of ownership, Johann Rupert, the businessman rated by Forbes as the fifth-wealthiest man in Africa with a net worth of $5.3 billion (about £4 billion), walked away, writing off debts of about £25 million.
Rupert is mainly based in South Africa but he was represented by his daughter, Caroline, who was a board member and asked in a board meeting for reassurance that the club were complying with the Premiership salary cap rules. She was given assurance that the club were inside the cap. She asked for the conversation to be minuted.
However, in 2015, Saracens and Bath were found guilty of breaching the rules of the cap. On that occasion, the Ruperts and their company, Remgro, elected to stay with the club. Last spring, they finally sold their stake.
The Times understands that the South Africans always asked for an unequivocal answer as to whether they were within cap. When they asked questions, they were told that the cap rules were open to interpretation.
Documents at Companies House reveal that Wray, Billy Vunipola and Mako Vunipola are shareholders in the property investment company VunProp Ltd, while Farrell and Wray are joint shareholders in a financial management firm, Faz Investments Ltd. Wray has a similar partnership with Saracens’ former England scrum half Richard Wigglesworth in a company called Wiggy9 Investments Ltd.
Under Premiership Rugby salary cap rules, all arrangements and contracts between players and club officials must be declared to the league’s salary cap manager Andrew Rogers.
A Premiership Rugby statement yesterday said that it took the salary cap framework “very seriously” and would be considering this information on Saracens “in detail”. It said: “Premiership Rugby has a duty to all clubs to deliver the system in a transparent, objective and non-discriminatory manner. Any decision on follow-up action would be taken with the assistance of independent bodies in accordance with the regulations.”
Saracens responded in a statement last night that said: “Firstly, we would like to reiterate that the club readily complies with Premiership Rugby salary regulations and information relating to remuneration is declared to the salary cap manager.
“Although co-investment partnerships between owners and players are not a prerequisite of the salary regulations, we disclose these transactions to Premiership Rugby and will continue to do so.”
The statement also emphasised that the salary cap rules gave clubs dispensation to spend beyond the £7 million according to how many home-grown players that they developed. The present squad, it said, contained 57 per cent home-grown players, which allowed the club to spend £1.2 million beyond the £7 million.
The arrival of the South Africans at Saracens nine seasons ago triggered the most successful period in the club’s history. The success only became a habit when a golden crop of home-grown players, including Farrell, Jamie George and George Kruis, came through their academy.
As the Farrell generation came through, their salaries grew from the comparatively small contracts that they were on in the academy to deals in the region of £500,000 a year.
This has taken them beyond the £7 million mark. Many fans of rival clubs believe that they must have broken the rules. Last month, when Saracens signed Elliot Daly, the Wasps player, to join next season on another high salary, some rival owners were exasperated.
Owen Slot, Chief Rugby Correspondent
March 5 2019, 12:00am,
Wray, the Saracens owner, owns businesses with leading players including Farrell and the Vunipola brothersDAVID ROGERS/GETTY IMAGES
Share
Save
The South African former co-owners of Saracens sold their 50 per cent shareholding in spring last year in part because they were uncomfortable about whether the leading club in England were obeying the Premiership salary cap rules.
Saracens’ adherence to the salary cap was being investigated yesterday after a newspaper exposé that found that Nigel Wray, who is now the club’s sole owner, had entered into business partnerships with some of the club’s leading England players, including Owen Farrell and the Vunipola brothers.
Premiership Rugby said yesterday that it would “look closely” at these business partnerships with Wray, the 70-year-old property investor whose personal wealth is estimated at about £315 million, to ensure that there had been no breach of their salary cap rules.
Saracens said that all the details of the business partnerships that were in the Daily Mail yesterday had already been declared to the Premiership salary manager.
The South Africans, who owned half of the club, were concerned about the club and whether it was breaching the cap. They made it clear that if the club were not under the cap, and within the spirit of the cap, then they would leave.
When they did sell last year, after nine years of ownership, Johann Rupert, the businessman rated by Forbes as the fifth-wealthiest man in Africa with a net worth of $5.3 billion (about £4 billion), walked away, writing off debts of about £25 million.
Rupert is mainly based in South Africa but he was represented by his daughter, Caroline, who was a board member and asked in a board meeting for reassurance that the club were complying with the Premiership salary cap rules. She was given assurance that the club were inside the cap. She asked for the conversation to be minuted.
However, in 2015, Saracens and Bath were found guilty of breaching the rules of the cap. On that occasion, the Ruperts and their company, Remgro, elected to stay with the club. Last spring, they finally sold their stake.
The Times understands that the South Africans always asked for an unequivocal answer as to whether they were within cap. When they asked questions, they were told that the cap rules were open to interpretation.
Documents at Companies House reveal that Wray, Billy Vunipola and Mako Vunipola are shareholders in the property investment company VunProp Ltd, while Farrell and Wray are joint shareholders in a financial management firm, Faz Investments Ltd. Wray has a similar partnership with Saracens’ former England scrum half Richard Wigglesworth in a company called Wiggy9 Investments Ltd.
Under Premiership Rugby salary cap rules, all arrangements and contracts between players and club officials must be declared to the league’s salary cap manager Andrew Rogers.
A Premiership Rugby statement yesterday said that it took the salary cap framework “very seriously” and would be considering this information on Saracens “in detail”. It said: “Premiership Rugby has a duty to all clubs to deliver the system in a transparent, objective and non-discriminatory manner. Any decision on follow-up action would be taken with the assistance of independent bodies in accordance with the regulations.”
Saracens responded in a statement last night that said: “Firstly, we would like to reiterate that the club readily complies with Premiership Rugby salary regulations and information relating to remuneration is declared to the salary cap manager.
“Although co-investment partnerships between owners and players are not a prerequisite of the salary regulations, we disclose these transactions to Premiership Rugby and will continue to do so.”
The statement also emphasised that the salary cap rules gave clubs dispensation to spend beyond the £7 million according to how many home-grown players that they developed. The present squad, it said, contained 57 per cent home-grown players, which allowed the club to spend £1.2 million beyond the £7 million.
The arrival of the South Africans at Saracens nine seasons ago triggered the most successful period in the club’s history. The success only became a habit when a golden crop of home-grown players, including Farrell, Jamie George and George Kruis, came through their academy.
As the Farrell generation came through, their salaries grew from the comparatively small contracts that they were on in the academy to deals in the region of £500,000 a year.
This has taken them beyond the £7 million mark. Many fans of rival clubs believe that they must have broken the rules. Last month, when Saracens signed Elliot Daly, the Wasps player, to join next season on another high salary, some rival owners were exasperated.
11
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: Saracens docked 35 points
« on: November 18, 2019, 04:24:30 PM »
Brian Moore in todays Torygraph
"So, Saracens are not to continue their appeal against the £5.4 million fine and 35-point deduction for not declaring income and breaking the salary cap for three seasons. This is not surprising for anyone who knows much about the procedural niceties of the case and given the sanction was handed down by a very experienced and highly qualified independent tribunal. It does seem to have come as a bit of a shock to some, who are trying to claim that this move says nothing about the merits of Saracens’ case. Evidently, it is purely on playing grounds and does not dent the claim that Saracens did nothing wrong, bar a bit of administrative misunderstanding.
Sure; and if you believe that you probably think Prince Andrew is a virgin."
Brilliant
"So, Saracens are not to continue their appeal against the £5.4 million fine and 35-point deduction for not declaring income and breaking the salary cap for three seasons. This is not surprising for anyone who knows much about the procedural niceties of the case and given the sanction was handed down by a very experienced and highly qualified independent tribunal. It does seem to have come as a bit of a shock to some, who are trying to claim that this move says nothing about the merits of Saracens’ case. Evidently, it is purely on playing grounds and does not dent the claim that Saracens did nothing wrong, bar a bit of administrative misunderstanding.
Sure; and if you believe that you probably think Prince Andrew is a virgin."
Brilliant
12
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: Saracens docked 35 points
« on: November 18, 2019, 12:06:34 PM »
Make sure you have a bucket to puke in before opening and reading Wray's ststement on dropping any appeal.
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/saracens-why-were-not-appealing-salary-cap-punishment
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/saracens-why-were-not-appealing-salary-cap-punishment
13
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: Saracens docked 35 points
« on: November 18, 2019, 11:07:34 AM »
For those of you having trouble sleeping this site is always interesting.
Good stuff on the legals involved in reasonably understandable English.
http://rugbyandthelaw.com/sports-law-blog/
Good stuff on the legals involved in reasonably understandable English.
http://rugbyandthelaw.com/sports-law-blog/
14
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: Saracens docked 35 points
« on: November 14, 2019, 09:45:41 AM »I agree totally. The shine has gone, and sense of anticipation is much reduced for me. If they let Sarries get away with it, I may consider cancelling my BT subscription and telling them why.
I also feel Lozowski's comments are really ill advised.
Me too.
15
Wasps Rugby Discussion / Re: Sale Game Thread
« on: November 09, 2019, 11:55:06 AM »
Who was(were) the worst offender(s) in conceding penalties?