EA's Docked a further 70 points

[Garuda]

I'm a little suspicious of this. Has some fudge gone on that means successive seasons of breach have all been penalised in one season? For me that gets it all out the way in one go. I'd have liked to have seen the down for the same amount of seasons they breached.

My thoughts too. A number of Sarries fans on their forum expressing disgust and contempt in the most vehement terms for the PRL and all other clubs for this additional slight on their club. But I can't help feeling they're now getting off lightly as they'll be no points penalty carried over to their next premiership season. Also, I'm reading several reports regards the two years compliance to the cap required for promotion back to the premiership now being waved away.

EA fans accuse others of making up the rules on the fly in order to further punish them. All I see is rules being made up on the fly to ensure on-going penalties are removed and paving the way for EA's immediate return from the Championship.

[DGP Wasp]

Scrapping all Sarries' league games just won't happen.  Deciding retrospectively to void results of matches that have already been played could equally have an impact on the final table.  Arguably Quins' 5 points last weekend were in part due to the relegation news, but I'm sure Quins would contest that they earned them fair and square and I wouldn't disagree.  Earlier in the season, Exeter and Northampton won against Sarries and no-one could claim that they didn't deserve those points.  Aside from those 3, the other club to miss out would be Irish to the tune of 1 losing bonus point.  The rest is going to be down to luck of the draw and when they choose to play certain players in preparation for the only competition they are still meaningfully competing in.  To suggest that they would field a stronger team against certain opponents out of spite is ridiculous.  Their selection for league games will be determined by their preparations for the Champions Cup.

For the next 7 weeks (4 rounds of Premiership rugby) they won't have their internationals available anyway.  Then, following the 6N there's 2 weeks of Prem before the Euro quarters, 3 weeks Prem then Euro semis and then 2 weeks Prem before the Euro final, then the final 2 Prem rounds.  For as long as they're still in Europe then I doubt we'll see much of their big names domestically.  Once they're out (C'mon Leinster!!) then who knows.

All of this could work out quite nicely for Wasps as we are one of only 2 teams yet to play them this season.

[wasps]

There's a report regarding the Chris Ashton house purchase which makes me feel that Saracens have been harshly dealt with in respect of that sole incident (the rest i have no problem with)

It sounds like having the owner of your rugby club help buy your house is fine, and not classed as a salary bonus providing:
  - you're paying it back in installments.
  - Repayment holidays are acceptable, providing they don't cross rugby seasons

The series of events as I understand it are that Nigel Wray and another director each loaned Chris Ashton 10% of the value of his house. Chris was responsible for the majority 80%.
Chris Ashton was paying the 20% back at ~£14,000 per month until things went bad at Toulon and they stopped paying him, at which point he requested a repayment holiday from Wray... who "happily" obliged.

When he then signed for Sale, their owner then paid off the outstanding loan (and it was included as salary in their salary cap)

The only reason this deal was even included in the investigation is that the repayment holiday crossed rugby seasons and was therefore seen as a benefit for playing for Saracens - which he wasn't doing at the time and hadn't for some time.


If the loan itself is fine, but the repayment holiday is the problem, then it seems harsh for Saracens to be penalised for it considering the holiday occurred a long while after he left the club.


Am I missing something?

[DGP Wasp]

The key difference between Ashton and the others is that Ashton's was a house for him and his family to live in.  The other property deals that have been raised were buy to let property investments, with Nigel and cronies putting up the deposit and a tenant covering the mortgage, so no capital input from the players involved, just a nice little nest egg.

Ashton's case in isolation could be viewed as an honest mistake by an owner who was just trying to help him out, but against the backdrop of all the other dodgy deals that were known to be going on, it ends up looking like just another way to get around the cap and retain a top player.

(Ashton left for Toulon, so it was their owner that then paid it off, not Sale)

[wasps]

The key difference between Ashton and the others is that Ashton's was a house for him and his family to live in.  The other property deals that have been raised were buy to let property investments, with Nigel and cronies putting up the deposit and a tenant covering the mortgage, so no capital input from the players involved, just a nice little nest egg.

Ashton's case in isolation could be viewed as an honest mistake by an owner who was just trying to help him out, but against the backdrop of all the other dodgy deals that were known to be going on, it ends up looking like just another way to get around the cap and retain a top player.

(Ashton left for Toulon, so it was their owner that then paid it off, not Sale)

Hey DGP... no... it wasn't the Toulon owner who paid it off.
Ashton was paying back the installments while at Toulon - until the Toulon owner stopped paying Ashton when he announced he was leaving them to join Sale.


or so says this article.
https://www.rugbypass.com/news/the-truth-about-chris-ashton-toulon-and-the-1-35m-saracens-property-deal-which-sale-sharks-paid-off/


That's why it feels harsh on Saracens in this instance...... particularly if a loan that gets repaid regularly to buy a house is completely legal (as suggested in the article)

[Neils]

Also did Ashton not allude to the fact that as they had done it previously he felt fine about asking. This would suggest a long term plan - far longer than found guilty for twice.

[wasps]

Also did Ashton not allude to the fact that as they had done it previously he felt fine about asking. This would suggest a long term plan - far longer than found guilty for twice.

Indeed.
it seems like it's not an uncommon practice, and not against the salary cap rules at all..... providing the loan is paid back (even if it's interest free)

The only thing that made it illegal in this case is that the repayment holiday straddled salary cap years.

[Daeg]

Actually, thinking about this, I do have a problem with it. First and formost having access to an interest free loan of that size is a significant benefit, I'd love someone to give me 20% of my mortagage interest free... I'd be saving a mint, and if my employer offered that then it would be a substantial enticement to join them.

Secondly having the loan outstanding whilst he was playing for a competitor club is highly dubious ethically. Would we really be happy with a player wearing a wasps shirt playing against opposition knowing that that player owed the owner of the opposition serious money? Just because Ashton's situation is different and of lesser degree than the other EA issues does not make it 'right'.

Sermon ended!!

[RogerE]

One of the things I suggested was that on any loan if interest was charged at less than the current bank rate the difference should be treated as income and count towards the cap.

[wasps]

Actually, thinking about this, I do have a problem with it. First and formost having access to an interest free loan of that size is a significant benefit, I'd love someone to give me 20% of my mortagage interest free... I'd be saving a mint, and if my employer offered that then it would be a substantial enticement to join them.

Secondly having the loan outstanding whilst he was playing for a competitor club is highly dubious ethically. Would we really be happy with a player wearing a wasps shirt playing against opposition knowing that that player owed the owner of the opposition serious money? Just because Ashton's situation is different and of lesser degree than the other EA issues does not make it 'right'.

Sermon ended!!

Daeg, I totally agree with those points.

The thing is that premier rugby and the salary cap as it is at the moment (and I don't think this bit is changing) doesn't see a problem with those benefits.

They're happy for any millionaire club owner to buy a house, interest free, for their players as long as a reasonable repayment plan exists and is abided to.

I feel that's where they're going wrong for a start. However, once they say that bit is fine, then that just leaves the issue of the repayment holiday as the problem, and as that occurred for genuine reasons and after Ashton left Saracens it seems a bit harsh.



That being said, the more I've thought about it, the more I think that premier rugby would have overlooked it if it had been a isolated incident.
However, as there's been blatant, ongoing contempt for the rules, they're now throwing the book at them for every and any transgression they can find, and that's very hard to argue with

[DanJester]

The level of mental gymnastics to try and paint their club as victims, finger pointing to try and deflect focus onto other clubs who may or may not have breaches in their records, and the inability to recognise and accept the impact and severity of what Saracens have done, makes the vocal segment of their fans look very, very bad.

The club's refusal to come clean, admit that what they did was both wrong and intentionally done, is damning. Even if (And it would have to be a very generous if) you give them the benefit of the doubt after the initial investigation a few years back; for them to have not just continued down this path, but to have doubled down and seemingly got worse, speaks volumes about the organisation.

This isn't the odd extra tenner, here and there. This is a conscious, concerted and deliberate effort to circumvent the rules of the competition that they agreed to play under. It has been going on for YEARS. Refusing to open their books for an audit just underlines that they have further secrets to hide. Financial doping is still doping.

Sarries titles should be voided.  They were not won fairly, and no-one sane rugby fan will ever see them as champions for those seasons.

[Raggs]

There's a report regarding the Chris Ashton house purchase which makes me feel that Saracens have been harshly dealt with in respect of that sole incident (the rest i have no problem with)

It sounds like having the owner of your rugby club help buy your house is fine, and not classed as a salary bonus providing:
  - you're paying it back in installments.
  - Repayment holidays are acceptable, providing they don't cross rugby seasons

The series of events as I understand it are that Nigel Wray and another director each loaned Chris Ashton 10% of the value of his house. Chris was responsible for the majority 80%.
Chris Ashton was paying the 20% back at ~£14,000 per month until things went bad at Toulon and they stopped paying him, at which point he requested a repayment holiday from Wray... who "happily" obliged.

When he then signed for Sale, their owner then paid off the outstanding loan (and it was included as salary in their salary cap)

The only reason this deal was even included in the investigation is that the repayment holiday crossed rugby seasons and was therefore seen as a benefit for playing for Saracens - which he wasn't doing at the time and hadn't for some time.


If the loan itself is fine, but the repayment holiday is the problem, then it seems harsh for Saracens to be penalised for it considering the holiday occurred a long while after he left the club.


Am I missing something?

You are missing something.  As the article points out, they bought 20% of the house. It doesn't tell us if he lived in it, or if they received any rent etc.

20% at the time was about £240k.

When he bought them out, it was worth £320k.

He started paying back about 13.4k each month. He did this apparently for 11 months, it was supposed to be 18 months.

So, the issues.

He should have been paying £320k back, but he was in fact paying only £240k.

In theory he'd paid off about £140k over those 11 months (more I think). Meaning there should have only been about £100k of debt left for him to pay on the agreed schedule.

Sale then magically pay the full worth of the 20% as it stands, ignoring the fact that Ashton was only paying £240k, and ignoring the fact that Ashton had in theory already paid £140k of it off...

Something stinks, and it's only partially the fact that the "journalist" who reported this, didn't ask any of these questions.

EDIT - Actually it's worse. The investors paid £270k to start with, so lost money on a property that increased in value.

[mike909]

In theory he'd paid off about £140k over those 11 months (more I think). Meaning there should have only been about £100k of debt left for him to pay on the agreed schedule.

Sale then magically pay the full worth of the 20% as it stands, ignoring the fact that Ashton was only paying £240k, and ignoring the fact that Ashton had in theory already paid £140k of it off...

So - either Ashton hadn't paid anything off and Sale paid the whole debt or Ashton had and someone made a profit equal to the amount Ashton had paid off. And Ashton may or may not have received benefit from the transactions and that may or may not have been a proper part of the Salary Cap.

So were Sale paying this amount as an unofficial transfer fee?

[westwaleswasp]

Really, if you are a London club you should be struggling to attract lower earning players due to housing. Interest free loans ameliorate that natural disadvantage. I recall an interview with Wray who said that without housing help Sarries might struggle to attract players as a London club, it was around the time of the first breach, perhaps just before.
Now, imagine we want a player who also is wanted by Quins. One of our advantages is the house said player gets is better than it would be in London, but it won't likely appreciate at the same rate, so a choice needs to be made between quality of house and the long term sell on value. This is a choice many people have to make in life, it is why I am here and not in a more expensive part of the UK. One of Wasps' drawbacks relative to London is our area is less well connected, job opportunities after are less likely to arrive post career. But if those disparities are evened out before signing-say we set a player up with a high earning job after they retire upon their arrival, that starts to get fishy in my book. Inducements to sign that are not salary are benefits that will enable money to be hidden and erode those natural choices that players make when weighing up pros and cons of signing. If you are left with a player signing for a club and there is no material difference in living standards between clubs due to the club's off field actions, it becomes a slippery slope, as Sarries have found.
I view interest free loans  as being designed for a player to buy something they can't afford on their salary, which sounds like a financial benefit akin to dropping in a free high end car or whatever. If housing in London is a problem I would have less issue with a club owning houses and allowing academy players to stay in them at low rent than I would offering a big name player a chunk of cash at below market rate interest so they can buy something they can't afford. If Ashton wanted a loan, an independent bank should have been the place to go, not to a club chair or similar.

[mike909]

If housing in London is a problem I would have less issue with a club owning houses and allowing academy players to stay in them at low rent than I would offering a big name player a chunk of cash at below market rate interest so they can buy something they can't afford. If Ashton wanted a loan, an independent bank should have been the place to go, not to a club chair or similar.

I was about the write similar

I'd actually have few problems with a club owning housing and renting to any players - especially if in really expensive areas.