Saracens docked 35 points

[Tervueren]

"DISCIPLINE. HONESTY. WORK RATE. HUMILITY" - perhaps now they will add "HUBRIS"

[Neils]

European Rugby must have a view. This has completely devalued their competitions

How? It has nothing to do with them really. There is no salary cap in the european rugby tournaments.

Because their winners fraudulently qualified in their home country for three seasons.

[MattWasp]

So, will Saracens continue to field the players involved’?  Absurd, but nothing about that club should come as a surprise.

One hopes it won’t take Prem Rugby another three years to deduct further points if / when they do.

[mike909]

The excuses btl on the Guardian are trying too hard....."inadvertent " ...really?

Hard to argue  this is ok as its to the benefit of the players outside of rugby. ...if not available to non Sarries players, surely?

[Tervueren]

The Sarries statement includes "The Club is pleased the Panel acknowledged it did not deliberately attempt to breach the salary cap", is this somewhere in the judgment?

[mike909]

The Sarries statement includes "The Club is pleased the Panel acknowledged it did not deliberately attempt to breach the salary cap", is this somewhere in the judgment?

So it was an accident  then? Weird, it can't have been  done  unless decided upon,  surely?

[InBetweenWasp]

The Sarries statement includes "The Club is pleased the Panel acknowledged it did not deliberately attempt to breach the salary cap", is this somewhere in the judgment?

I’ve been wondering the same thing.  I don’t recall seeing it in the Premier Rugby Presser.

I think this really needs a bit more transparency... I’d like to see

- What were the transgressions in each of the 3 seasons mentions; The value they were over and the reasoning given by Saracens for the oversight
- What was the panels view of that reasoning and their full verdict.  In particular, the context around their ‘we don’t believe it was an attempt to deliberately breach the salary cap’ comments

-35pts and a £5m fine suggests they don’t really believe it to be an accident!

[welsh wasp]

Was it only last week that their finance manager fell on their sword & left. Was that “inadvertent” too!?
That’s an odd word to use. They didn’t realise they were at risk of breaching the cap? They didn’t explain to their players the basis of the payments being to them - & they insisted that players did not discuss their terms with each other?
I assume that the excess payments will now be withdrawn from the players.
Perhaps INADVERTENT will also appear on their grandstand roof.

[Westy68]

If co-investment doesn't effect the cap, are sarries over the cap then?, which is why the penalties occur. I don't understand what the fine and points deduction are for - can someone please explain

[JF]

According to the Beeb "The club apologised for "administrative errors relating to the non-disclosure of some transactions"".

That's a very poor and slightly worrying attemtp to downplay what's happened.

For the sums of money that are being talked about we are well outside the realms of admin cockups. Amounts like that can only, in any well-run organisation, be made with the approval of senior people, both in terms of approving the authorising document (eg an invoice or contract) and for the actual payment itself.

This isn't a case of someone in accounts paying an invoice twice.

I wonder how the club's sponsors will react.

[Mellie]

I think the business support to Sarries players by Wray is a brilliant idea. It sets players up for life after rugby. However, it looks like they considered it as a loophole to be exploited and not as a financial inducement that flouted the cap. After all actual salaries do not kick in until much later. But it must be classed as payment in kind if players are given a wedge of cash investment.

The reason it has to be a breach is it is only open to Sarries players and because Wray has the means and therefore anti competitive. I'm sure it is only for top earning players to get their base salaries down to make it look like they are within the cap. So probably not even available to all at Sarries.

It may be a good idea to allow this in future as long as it is part of the cap. I suspect that Sarries would not be expected to make changes to squad this season as they are unlikely to win the Prem from 35 points down but they should not be allowed to renew contracts for next season unless the total pot is within the cap. That means they may have to encourage some players to leave who are in contract.

[Hymenoptera]

Didn't see this coming.
Competitive disadvantage in the extreme. If this situation was allowed, Wasps could pay their players 10k per year, remain well under the cap and pay them via property....this has nothing to do with setting players up after rugby life...nice narrative but utter BS. It all about Wray's ego.
For all the hate the Daily Mail gets I for one say thank you to them...they should be acknowledged. 

[Tervueren]

I think there must be more we are not being told.

A true joint investment where both parties invest and receive income commensurate with their investment does not involve one party giving money to another. At worst it could be that one party benefits from access to finance or the ability to have a more profitable investment that they might otherwise manage on their own.

Even the idea that one party might nod over their investment to the other as a way round the cap is something in the future, Sarries can hardly be penalised because Wray might give someone some money one day in the future.

To get a 35pt and 5m punishment there surely must have been a lot of other stuff provide there was underhand activity, perhaps other partnerships having been dissolved in the players favour or other secret payment vehicles.

Will we ever see full details?

[Rifleman Harris]

I think the business support to Sarries players by Wray is a brilliant idea. It sets players up for life after rugby. However, it looks like they considered it as a loophole to be exploited and not as a financial inducement that flouted the cap. After all actual salaries do not kick in until much later. But it must be classed as payment in kind if players are given a wedge of cash investment.

The reason it has to be a breach is it is only open to Sarries players and because Wray has the means and therefore anti competitive. I'm sure it is only for top earning players to get their base salaries down to make it look like they are within the cap. So probably not even available to all at Sarries.

It may be a good idea to allow this in future as long as it is part of the cap. I suspect that Sarries would not be expected to make changes to squad this season as they are unlikely to win the Prem from 35 points down but they should not be allowed to renew contracts for next season unless the total pot is within the cap. That means they may have to encourage some players to leave who are in contract.

A couple of points - I agree it is a great idea to support players, but maybe there should be a central fund contributed to equally by all the clubs (which may be an issue I know, but it would remove it as an incentive to move to one club or another).

The second point is that if they are allowed to keep their squad intact and then avoid relegation, someone else playing to the rules is relegated.  Is it really any different to winning the title by cheating? They must be made to keep to the cap this season otherwise the punishment is a mockery.  (those eagle eyed ones will notice I've changed my position on this as I have thought about it!).

[Neils]

I wonder if the Club Chairmen will comment. If they were only told this morning I suspect there may be other conversations going on. I can't believe they will leave it to PRL's very dry statement (posted earlier in the thread). EAs found guilty of three seasons breaching the cap up until May this year so what about this season. The clubs cannot be happy that they have been "let go" to proceed through games untouched (yes there is a fine and a points deduction BUT for previous years). That is three seasons of relegated clubs who "may" not have deserved it had the EAs been promptly punished. Notwithstanding the slimy appeal by Wray this is going to run and run.
Also it is against all sentiment here and elsewhere but can I also say the Daily Mail team played a blinder bringing this out because if they hadn't carpets would have been well and truely brushed under.