EAs BBC - Squad May Be Dismantled

[andermt]

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.

If they are Ltd company sole employees then the players are about to get screwed in April when the new IR35 rules kick in.

[backdoc]

There ought to be a song (or chant) about this sorry saga.

I suggest the opening line (can’t remember who sang it)

“We’re always making plans with Nigel”

[NellyWellyWaspy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXNhL4J_S00

XTC. Back in my youth.

[backdoc]

Next home game v Sarries ( we had better not get relegated) we could have it on the tannoy when they take to the pitch

[matelot22]

I think total silence as the EA's enter would be more appropriate, treat them with the utter disdain they're deserving of.

[Tervueren]

We'll need to keep the 3 travelling EA fans quiet for that to work.

[Tervueren]

From yesterday's Telegraph

Exeter Chiefs chief executive Tony Rowe believes there is no reason to prevent the release of the Saracens salary cap judgement after its lead author, Lord Dyson, called for its immediate publication.

As one of the country’s foremost legal authorities, Lord Dyson said that it was against the public interest for the judgement to be withheld. Premiership Rugby only released a brief summary of the sanctions, which included a 35-point deduction as well as a £5.36 million fine for breaching the salary cap over three seasons. The full 103-page report is available only to club executives at Premiership Rugby’s offices.

Without any justification for how Lord Dyson and his fellow authors Aidan Robertson QC and Jeremy Summers reached their verdict, a dense fog of speculation has grown around the exact nature of Saracens’ offences. After previously covering up Saracens’ salary cap punishment in 2015, Rowe says that Premiership Rugby should now get everything out in the open.

“I’ve no idea why it has not been published and Exeter would welcome its publication,” Rowe said. “I have said from day one that people need to know the truth about everything so they can make their own minds up. If they don’t know the truth then how can they do that? At the moment, people are coming to very different conclusions to what they should do. I don’t see a reason why it has not been published and if Lord Dyson has called for it to be published then there really is no excuse to keep it under wraps.”

Lord Dyson’s intervention on the Law in Sport podcast was remarkable for his outspoken attack on Premiership Rugby’s decision to edit his summary. “I drafted a summary for their consideration, which included those two factors but they didn’t include them, so the public has no idea why we imposed the penalty we imposed,” Lord Dyson said. “I can’t see a justification for the cloak of privacy that is imposed in these cases. There is a real public interest in this.”

Premiership Rugby says it is bound by its own regulations, which limits it to publishing a brief summary of the sanctions. Overturning those regulations would require a unanimous vote from all 12 Premiership clubs and Newcastle Falcons. Saracens director of rugby Mark McCall has previously supported publishing the report, which has been read by senior executives from every club. In some cases, Andrew Rogers, Premiership Rugby's salary cap manager, spent two hours going through it line by line.

“We are bound by the Salary Cap Regulations which state that we are only able to publish a summary of any decision reached by an Independent Panel into Salary Cap breaches, which we have done,” said a Premiership Rugby spokesperson.

“Lord Myners’ independently-led review of the Salary Cap Regulations - which has already started - brings an opportunity to look at every aspect of the Regulations, including whether the existing approach to confidentiality is the right one for the future.”

However, there are Premiership chairmen and chief executives who are more circumspect around the benefits of getting everything out in the open, fearing it would be opening up another can of worms around the opaque nature of the salary-cap regulations. “By publishing the report, you may actually create more questions rather than reach any finality or certainty, which is the reason a lot of people are calling for it to be published,” one executive said. “I just don’t think you will get to that position through the publishing of the report. It is an incredibly complicated set of regulations and there are certain things Saracens have done which you can read in different lights.”

Last month, Premiership Rugby announced that former government minister Lord Myners would be conducting a “comprehensive review” of its salary cap regulations with a view to installing a new framework in time for the 2020/21 season. Many executives hope that in this new model a spirit of greater transparency will be grown.

“The situation with Saracens has shone a spotlight on the fact that the regulations are far from perfect,” the executive continued. “My hope is that we publish the new regulations. We can then say here’s the standard by which we are going to implement the salary cap so that if there are future issues around compliance then if becomes a no-brainer to get everything in the open.”

[BG]

From the above (thank you Tervueren for posting)

"However, there are Premiership chairmen and chief executives who are more circumspect around the benefits of getting everything out in the open, fearing it would be opening up another can of worms around the opaque nature of the salary-cap regulations."


.. which implies some clubs may have been sailing pretty close to the wind as well.

The article also says that PRL want the rules re-written to be applied for next season.

Surely PRL are going to have something in writing by the end of March at the latest.

[NellyWellyWaspy]

The boat has already sailed for next season. One could argue it has partly sailed for at least 2 or 3 seasons to come.

Too many contracts and processes (payment under counter) are probably already in place and rescinding them would not be possible.

The best that they can do is clarification rules. For the avoidance of doubt type of statements. Also references to what the Inland Revue would consider payment or benefit in kind.

Put the emphasis on the player to show that payments from third parties were for non-related work and for the club to show that said third parties had no ties (sponsorship, supplier, box holder) to the club, and that schemes designed to circumvent these rules would be deemed against the rules. Investment for the future should be limited to training and education, such as uni degree costs like fees. No co-investments to be allowed. The club should pay real cash and let the player invest as they wish. It's how the rest of us mere mortals have to exist.

[wasps]

However, there are Premiership chairmen and chief executives who are more circumspect around the benefits of getting everything out in the open, fearing it would be opening up another can of worms around the opaque nature of the salary-cap regulations. “By publishing the report, you may actually create more questions rather than reach any finality or certainty, which is the reason a lot of people are calling for it to be published,” one executive said. “I just don’t think you will get to that position through the publishing of the report. It is an incredibly complicated set of regulations and there are certain things Saracens have done which you can read in different lights.”

This is the bit that i like.
That suggests to me that Saracens are exceeding the salary cap due to many different factors, not simply just overspending or co-investments.

As rumoured elsewhere, in addition there's probably offshore image rights payments, houses etc. that are probably a bit "grey", but also difficult to quantify.

[Neils]

http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2020/01/13/saracens-and-the-salary-cap-part-iv-premiership-rugby-wage-reduction-player-release-compliance-regulations/

[BG]

http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2020/01/13/saracens-and-the-salary-cap-part-iv-premiership-rugby-wage-reduction-player-release-compliance-regulations/

Effectively this explains what many here have said.. if Sarries force players to leave they will be open to being taken to court for wrongful/constructive dissmal.

If Sarries pay a settlement figure to terminate a contract.. that settlement figure becomes part of the salary cap.

The other way of reducing this years spending is to ask players/squad to take an immediate pay cut.. but players can refuse.

If a player takes a voluntary pay cut then that opens up the original can of worms in that it implies that the players might be recompensed in other ways deemed outside of the salary cap i.e. Wray paying someone out of one his many business ventures.

Meanwhile.. they are still operating and winning with the same squad.

PRL and Sarries are very slowly digging the whole deeper

[Rossm]

I see that Nick Tompkins has just been called up by Wales for their 6 nations squad. Presumably, if he was EQP, this will mean no more money from RFU. I know it's a drop in the ocean but will they have to adjust their sums?

PS. I've just seen that Will Rowlands has also been called into the Welsh squad. So presumably we will have to adjust our sums as well.

[welsh wasp]

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.

[wasps]

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’.

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.