Always a Wasp
General Category => Wasps Rugby Discussion => Topic started by: jamestaylor002 on June 02, 2020, 10:44:47 AM
-
https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/52875739 (https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/52875739)
A ground-breaking overhaul of the Premiership salary cap has been unanimously approved by clubs.
Last month, Lord Myners made 52 official recommendations as part of his comprehensive report into the cap.
All measures will be applied, including titles being stripped for serious offences and more accountability for clubs, players and agents.
The review comes in the aftermath of champions Saracens' relegation from the Premiership for repeated cap breaches.
However changing the level of the cap, currently £7m, and scrapping the two marquee player allowances were not part of the official recommendations.
While former government minister Myners did call for the marquee rule - which allows two players to be paid an unlimited amount outside the cap - to be reviewed by the clubs, he did not go as far as to recommend that it should be removed.
His recommendations for the English top flight also included:
- Greater sanctions for clubs in breach, including relegations, suspension, stripping of titles, and return of prize money.
- Greater accountability for players, and sanctions for players in breach of their obligations.
- Greater accountability for agents, and sanctions for agents in breach of their obligations.
- Greater accountability for club officials, and the introduction of a "fit and proper" test for club owners.
- Greater transparency and clearer regulations, with clearer definitions of what constitutes salary.
- Greater power and support for the salary cap manager.
"I am immensely grateful to Lord Myners for his thorough, diligent and robust approach to conducting this review," said Premiership Rugby chief executive Darren Childs.
"It's a credit to our clubs that they have acted so quickly to support these recommendations and take the Premiership Rugby salary cap into a new era. We want to create the gold standard for delivering sporting integrity, financial viability and competitive balance.
"The next stage is for us to consult with our clubs, the Rugby Football Union and Rugby Players' Association and to enshrine these new regulations for the start of the 2020-21 season, which will be created for the long-term benefit of our sport."
Former Harlequins and Saracens chief executive Mark Evans told BBC Radio 5 Live's Rugby Union Weekly podcast that the Myners report was "undoubtedly" a step in the right direction, but warned a further governance overhaul at Premiership Rugby is needed.
"I don't think our league is very well structured. I am a big fan of the salary cap, but the salary cap can't do it on its own," Evans said.
"It needs about 10 or 12 other things to happen if we are to build the Premiership into a sustainable league that can grow over time."
-
But no change to the Cap or Marquee status. Kind of looks like Lansdown and his ilk have won that one.
-
According to Chris Foy, they needed a bit of encouragement to agree. I guess that was it.
-
The stronger sanctions and in particular the individual accountability including players and their agents should ensure future compliance.
Lord Myners's recommendations have been accepted unanimously and in full, so presumably that means there will now be a review of the marquee rule as that was the recommendation as opposed to its immediate abolition. With the current perilous financial state of the elite game, such a review would be timely, but I'm not sure it would gain quite the same level of support if put to a vote following review. Time will tell.
-
The stronger sanctions and in particular the individual accountability including players and their agents should ensure future compliance.
Lord Myners's recommendations have been accepted unanimously and in full, so presumably that means there will now be a review of the marquee rule as that was the recommendation as opposed to its immediate abolition. With the current perilous financial state of the elite game, such a review would be timely, but I'm not sure it would gain quite the same level of support if put to a vote following review. Time will tell.
I doubt there will be any change to Marquee and Cap as there are too many clubs against it - the likes of Bristol, Bath, Exeter, Sale and the EAs would oppose it. That is too many to get anything passed.
-
'Haves' and 'Have nots' becoming a reality?
-
Immediately scrapping the marquee and cap regulations could not have been achieved since clubs have already signed player contracts.
The earliest it could possibly be changed is possibly in 2 or 3 years. Hopefully by that time the penny might have sunk in. the league can't survive with clubs losing £2m - £4m each season
It's up to the clubs to manage their finances better and with PRL being given a bigger stick, I'm hoping they all do.
There will always be inequalties (as in life generally) but there will be club/owners that will try to push the rules to the limit.
I'm wondering if the loan system has also been tweaked.
-
While the marque will of course improve a team, mostly in that position, i wouldn't be too bothered if the big boys had them and others didn't. A properly coached team with quality throughout the squad should be competitive enough that i wouldn't be wo is me. That is of course unless they are worth 10 points a game, maybe a Piatau or a Randrandra but thats dream land surely.
-
'Haves' and 'Have nots' becoming a reality?
This exactly, we risk having a league that is grossly uncompetitive and ultimately starts to lose public interest.
-
'Haves' and 'Have nots' becoming a reality?
This exactly, we risk having a league that is grossly uncompetitive and ultimately starts to lose public interest.
Has generally been for a few years with overfinanced EAs winning much.
-
'Haves' and 'Have nots' becoming a reality?
This exactly, we risk having a league that is grossly uncompetitive and ultimately starts to lose public interest.
Has generally been for a few years with overfinanced EAs winning much.
Touche!
-
Not sure it is an uncompetitive league. If you take Saracens out who have been operating way outside of the cap I think it's very tight. What's more the salary cap, as it is, is doing the job of providing the "handicapping" system the league requires. More accountability - yes, fine. Fundamental changes - not needed for me.
-
All the clubs bar one are losing money, and the one that isn't is lying about it.
How long can that go on for?
Tickets are pretty pricey across the game compared to Wales- it was not long a go I could get an entire Ospreys season ticket for the price of 3 Wasps games at the price we normally play (admittedly that is apple v orange as when going to fewer games I am inclined to pay more). Wasps are not the most expensive English club, either. I can't see the gap being plugged by sales of beer or seats, it has to be TV money and as athletics has found, broadcasters don't always offer more each contract renewal. So that is key, how much money can be extracted from broadcasters. I am glad they are doing what they have done, but I would not be surprised if there were clubs destined to go the way of Richmond, London Welsh, Celtic Warriors etc.
I would not be unhappy if we did not have a marquee and others did, but I think issues go deeper.
-
That's a slightly different argument around sustainability rather than competitiveness. I take your point about the worrying financial state of a lot of clubs but for me it's s bit of a catch 22. If top players can't make the living in the Prem they can make elsewhere lots will go. Loyal fans will still turn up but TV might lose interest. Plus, the players deserve the rewards for what is a brutal game. I think the current balance is about right and particularly at Wasps we're already seeing a move to a more sustainable model that is club led without regulation change.
-
In Wales, a number of players are on central contracts. This probably goes some way to reducing the costs that the clubs have to cover through gate receipts. That and the lower cost of living helping to hold down wage pressures.
-
In Wales, a number of players are on central contracts. This probably goes some way to reducing the costs that the clubs have to cover through gate receipts. That and the lower cost of living helping to hold down wage pressures.
The EPS agreement between PRL and the RFU already means that the clubs receive cash and cap credits from the RFU/PRL.
I can't see central contracts working unless the clubs give up on running their own league.
-
https://www.wasps.co.uk/news/premiership-rugby-clubs-support-lord-myners-recommendations/ (https://www.wasps.co.uk/news/premiership-rugby-clubs-support-lord-myners-recommendations/)
Full list of recommendations on the offy:
The Premiership Rugby Board have unanimously supported the Myners Report and its 52 recommendations.
Commissioned by Premiership Rugby Chief Executive, Darren Childs, and conducted by former Government Minister, Lord Myners CBE, the Myners Review is the most comprehensive analysis of the Premiership Rugby Salary Cap since it was introduced 21 years ago.
The independent review was created to further strengthen the regulations to create a world-leading Salary Cap system. It followed from the 2019 case in which an independent disciplinary panel gave a strong endorsement of the regulations, finding the cap to be consistent with competition law and with the objectives of ensuring the financial viability of clubs and the league, controlling inflationary pressures, providing a level playing field, ensuring a competitive league and enabling clubs to compete in European competitions.
All 13 Premiership Rugby clubs have united to support the recommendations and agreed to move to the next stage of developing these recommendations into detailed regulation. This stage will involve further consultation with our clubs, the RFU and RPA. These new regulations will then be presented to Premiership Rugby Board for approval.
As part of the review, Lord Myners undertook an extensive public consultation so that anyone interested in professional club rugby, including supporters and players, could have their say on the future of the regulations. Around 450 individuals and organisations responded to the consultation and Lord Myners held follow-up interviews with around 200 stakeholders to discuss their views in detail.
Darren Childs, Chief Executive of Premiership Rugby, said: “I am immensely grateful to Lord Myners for his thorough, diligent and robust approach to conducting this review.
“It's a credit to our clubs that they have acted so quickly to support these recommendations and take the Premiership Rugby salary cap into a new era. We want to create the gold standard for delivering sporting integrity, financial viability and competitive balance.
"The next stage is for us to consult with our clubs, RFU and RPA and to enshrine these new regulations for the start of the 2020-21 season, which will be created for the long-term benefit of our sport.”
Appendix: the recommendations in full are:
1. Separation of Investigation, Decision to Prosecute and Enforcement
1.1 Enshrine a commitment by the clubs to respect the independence of the regulations.
1.2 The current discretion for clubs to choose to remove a director of a club pursuant to Regulation 14.7 should be removed.
1.3 Appoint an independent Cap Governance Monitor, with reserved powers in relation to the enforcement of the regulations.
2. Transparency
2.1 Announce the fact that a charge has been brought as soon as is reasonably practical and within seven days, with a brief summary of the substance and details, and proposed dates for a hearing.
2.2 Publish disciplinary decisions in full, with the redaction of confidential information or personal data.
2.3 Include details of all breaches and sanctions in a comprehensive SCM annual report, which is made public.
2.4 Publish guidance from the SCM regularly and make this publicly available.
2.5 Publish general information to share details about the operation of the cap and how it is achieving its objectives.
2.6 Publish any changes to the regulations, along with a rationale for how it is consistent with the five regulatory objectives.
3. Drafting of the Regulations and Definition of Salary
3.1 The regulations should remain as a set of detailed rules, backed up by principles.
3.2 All permitted payments to players should be automatically included within the salary cap, except for a few clearly communicated exceptions.
3.3 All exceptional items to be pre-approved by the SCM, otherwise they will be automatically treated as salary.
3.4 Prohibit payments which are subjective, extend beyond a player’s playing career or come from connected parties (including sponsorship by connected parties). Any prohibited payment should result in a sanction.
3.5 Broaden the current definition of connected party.
3.6 The SCM must approve all sponsorship arrangements in advance.
3.7 Tighten provisions around player loans to ensure they are bona fide.
3.8 Review provisions for exempt (marquee) players.
3.9 Remove the provision to deem a salary. Instead allow evidence of inaccurate salary declaration to be sufficient grounds for the SCM to launch an investigation.
3.10 Strengthen emphasis on clubs seeking clarification from the SCM in relation to any uncertainty in the interpretation of the regulations. Failure by a club to do so should be treated by the disciplinary panel as an aggravating factor leading to an increased sanction.
4. Club Accountability
4.1 The entry level for points sanctions should be increased.
4.2 The disciplinary panel should be entitled to take into account a wider range of factors and be given more guidance in relation to how those factors might influence their decision and their relative weighting.
4.3 Increase sanctions for failure to co-operate to a level equivalent to the sanctions available for breach of the salary cap.
4.4 Make additional sporting sanctions available, including relegation, suspension, stripping of titles and return of prize money.
4.5 Provide the disciplinary panel with the power to install an independent monitor for consistent and serious breaches.
4.6 Increase the sanctions available to the SCM for breach of lower level regulatory breaches, including the ability to deduct 2 points, with a right of appeal for clubs before an independent disciplinary panel.
5. Player Accountability
5.1 Tie players into the regulations so that they have accountability with respect to the salary cap.
5.2 The following player obligations should be adopted:
i) Player declaration
ii) Reporting arrangements for players
iii) Onus on player to clarify arrangements
iv) Co-operation.
5.3 Provide sanctions for players who are in breach of their obligations under the Regulations. These sanctions should include fines and sporting sanctions.
6. Accountability of Others
6.1 Introduce a fit and proper test for club owners to be available to the Disciplinary Panel in extreme circumstances.
6.2 Define a category of “club officials” to include directors and shareholders with more than a 10% holding and each club official should register with Premiership Rugby.
6.3 Require club officials to sign a declaration confirming that they have read the Regulations and agree to abide by them.
6.4 Require a board representative to sign a declaration of anticipated and actual compliance with the Regulations.
6.5 Provide that any club official who knew, or should have known, about the breach of the salary cap and who has signed a false declaration or certification or has unreasonably failed to co-operate with salary cap regulations is subject to sanctions including a ban from Premiership Rugby for up to two years (first offence) or up to lifetime (any subsequent offence).
6.6 Require clubs to nominate a salary cap officer who has duties to the SCM.
6.7 Provide obligations for agents in the regulations that mirror those of players in relation to disclosure and obligation to co-operate with the SCM.
6.8 Add a provision to the RFU’s agent declaration that includes an agreement by each agent to comply with the regulations.
6.9 Provide sanctions for breach of the regulations by an agent, including suspension of licence, forfeiture of any commission and/or fines.
7. Powers and Resource of the SCM and the auditors
7.1 Extend system to allow central access to each club’s salary cap spreadsheet at all times.
7.2 Require clubs to provide copies of documents such as new contracts to the SCM within 14 days.
7.3 Clarify the power of the SCM to attend clubs without notice and require them to provide him with finance reports and access to management accounts.
7.4 Allow the SCM to make requests to see players’ tax returns on a random basis.
7.5 Clarify that, as a part of their annual review, the auditors are able to obtain downloads of raw accounting data from each club’s system.
7.6 Enhance the powers available to the auditors in their annual audit to include mandatory interviews, sampling of tax returns and more extensive provision of information and documents by the clubs.
7.7 Introduce sanctions for clubs that do not comply with reasonable requests from auditors within a reasonable time frame.
7.8 The SCM should work with the Rugby Players Association and RFU to provide a programme of education for players and agents so that they understand their obligations under the regulations.
7.9 Change the title of the “SCM” to salary cap director”.
7.10 Appoint a deputy SCM to assist the SCD.
7.11 Appoint a full-time data analyst.
7.12 Make investigatory audits compulsory if the SCM has reasonable grounds to initiate.
7.13 Expand the scope of investigatory audits to include broader powers of search.
7.14 Provide sanctions for any club or individual who is found to have deleted evidence post the notification on an investigatory audit.
7.15 Introduce random mini investigatory audits for two clubs every year.
-
Who is betting on them arguing about how to make it happen?
-
'Haves' and 'Have nots' becoming a reality?
This exactly, we risk having a league that is grossly uncompetitive and ultimately starts to lose public interest.
I disagree. Ignoring the cap to build a team of top players is different to allowing 2 good players in.
If one or both of those is away on Intl's half the year there is little gain.
-
'Haves' and 'Have nots' becoming a reality?
This exactly, we risk having a league that is grossly uncompetitive and ultimately starts to lose public interest.
I disagree. Ignoring the cap to build a team of top players is different to allowing 2 good players in.
If one or both of those is away on Intl's half the year there is little gain.
No disagree with that. Where one team can spend the best part of £2m on two marquees and nick an England prop because Quins can't afford it. I would suggest it is happening already. When the EAs get back with their multimillion loan stars, add in Craig at Bath, Exeter beginning to become extravagant and Sale's desire to try and out spend them all I think you can see the split.
-
It's an interesting one. I see your point Neils but generally all the Prem sides can afford two very good marquees. The differential between players at that level is potentially small and is made smaller by it being just two players. On the flip side the marquees make an exciting spectacle for the league as a whole. Saracens wrecked the whole thing by cheating but ignoring that I think it's a fair enough system as it currently is.
-
Are you sure that all teams can afford two marquees now. Certainly only a very few can go to the level of Bristol. The piunt being made by those on the know is that the marquee system is pushing up the overall wage bill. This is in the current climate unsustainable for some (currently I would suggest that Wasps are close - according to Vaughan).
-
But surely the wage bill outside of the marquees cannot go up as a whole as that is precisely the role of the cap. I totally accept you can end up with smaller squads as you are playing less people more but I don't see much evidence of squad trimming. If teams are unsustainable within the cap that is different again. The natural way for them (and what I believe is playing out at Wasps) is to develop their own. There's strong and continued evidence that the second way is more successful anyway so I don't think the financial "split" always plays out the way you might think.