Current Page: 1 of 2
Noose review.
Posted by: Yorkie (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 12:10

In future, breaches will see titles stripped.

Says second big tent too complicated and salary inflationary so some clubs want rid.

If anyone finds a link to the full 55 page report, would make an interesting read.



http://www.jakehowlett.com/tuckshop/wrappers/chocolate/plain/yorkie-nutter.jpg




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 14/05/2020 12:12 by Yorkie.

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: Yorkie (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 12:25


Re: Noose review.
Posted by: Rich W (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 12:27

Quote:
A series of additional measures were also considered as part of the review, including disciplinary hearings being heard in public

I mean gods forbid there should be anything resembling transparency! I mean such things might be catching and we'd have transparency across the sport if we're not careful. Imagine!



...

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: SK 88 (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 14:54

Interesting only 450 responded to his questionnaire. Clearly not that much a burning issue for 150,000 people who regularly watch the games on TV then.

On transparency
Quote:
Myners report
2. Transparency
Alongside shortcomings in governance, the lack of transparency in the system has caused its own set of issues. As a general point, it is accepted in the business world that trust within organisations and between them and the people they rely on for their reputations and business models – customers, shareholders, employees, the media, policymakers, regulators, local communities – is a fundamental need. Secrecy and obfuscation are the enemies of trust.

Over the years in the top tier of English club rugby, a variety of dramas involving salary cap
infringements, negotiations and awarding of sanctions has played out against an unhelpful backdrop of secrecy. Inevitably, there has been a corresponding culture of unauthorised leaks. Most recently, the judgment from Lord Dyson was withheld from publication, contrary to Lord Dyson’s wishes.

This happened at a time when the direction of travel in public life is towards open justice with as
much of the process held in public as is possible. Open justice is a cornerstone of our criminal and
civil justice systems. Its primary purpose is to ensure that a trial is fair and that the public have
confidence in the process itself. With some exceptions, criminal cases and employment tribunals are heard in public, as are the hearings of regulators such as the General Medical Council and Solicitors Regulatory Authority. A sport’s governing body should be as transparent and open as reasonably possible. UK Sport’s “A Code for Sports Governance” encourages sports organisations to be transparent.


Re: Noose review.
Posted by: Brownian Motion (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 14:56

Where was the questionnaire publicised? I saw nothing about it, only found out about it through word-of-mouth.

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: SK 88 (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 15:00

Quote:
Myners report
Publication of an End-of-Season Report
The SCM receives a significant amount of data from each club each season. This information is not
just used to check each club’s compliance with the regulations. With the assistance of PRL’s
accountants, the SCM aggregates the information (so as to maintain confidentiality) and presents the findings to all of the clubs at the end of each season. The report is comprehensive and is used to keep the operation of the salary cap under constant review. This review allows the sport to continuously refine and develop not just the level at which the salary cap is set, but also the various exemptions that are afforded to each club.

I see no reason why this report, or a suitably revised version of it, should not be published
(Recommendation 2.5). It would provide the public and the media with a significantly enhanced
degree of transparency about how the salary cap operates in practice without compromising individual clubs’ confidential personnel and financial information.
I note that there is precedent for such reporting in sport: the World Anti-Doping Agency (“WADA”), for example, publishes an annual report that covers topics such as testing statistics and disciplinary processes and a separate compliance annual report, which is intended for signatories to the code and provides information about the maintenance and implementation of the WADA code.


I believe this would be publishing each club's total spend, what were allowances used and what non-cap spending was used (admitted to perhaps better phrase).

This is what I wanted most from the report. Just a list of who is in the cap, and how much was spent definitively. Rather than all these smoke and daggers about this person not being in the cap, and that person etc.

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: John Tee (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 15:44

I really dont think English rugby wants to or is prepared to take this cheating seriously...all too many vested interests seem to want it to go away
Cvc dont want to taint their product and the RFU would rather their players arent investigated and potentially banned and the rules are ridiculously flimsy in the first place ..
It is amateur hour...imo.

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: SK 88 (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 15:54

Have you read the report?

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: Duncan Keene (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 16:35

Quote:
Brownian Motion
Where was the questionnaire publicised? I saw nothing about it, only found out about it through word-of-mouth.

Fairly sure the link was posted on here. It was definitely tweeted out by Premier Rugby and possibly some of the clubs too. I couldn't avoid it for a few days when it first started!

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: Brownian Motion (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 16:40

I clearly wasn't paying enough attention!

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: IDLETIMES (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 16:56

Duncan is correct. My main gripe about the cap is the marquee players. Make the cap whatever it is but scrap the marquees

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: SK 88 (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 17:19

This is a sensible change,

Quote:
Myners report
In their current form, if the regulations are silent about a type of arrangement, then there is an assumption that a payment will be allowed and will not be included in the cap, no matter how closely it might resemble salary. This provides opportunities for the creation of new and complex vehicles for value-transfer. If challenged, clubs can claim that the arrangement was not covered by the regulations and so need not be included in their cap. This approach is akin to putting candy in front a baby.

The presumption needs to be reversed. Everything received by a player from a club or party connected to a club, assuming it is a permitted payment, should be automatically included within the salary cap, except for a small number of clear exceptions (Recommendation 3.2). I understand that there are a few elements of salary that need specific treatment (for example, redundancy payments, flights, signing and agents’ fees) but, aside from these, the full amount should be counted in salary and not just the “benefit” as HMRC might tax a benefit.

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: SK 88 (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 17:34

Quote:
Myners Report
Payments post-playing career: One issue that was highlighted by the Saracens case surrounds the effective policing of arrangements between a player and a club (or their respective connected parties) which persist once the player has left the club in question, or even after they have retired or left the country. I can see no good reason why a player should continue to be remunerated for player services once the player has left the club. In my view, this should be prohibited. I do not object to limited exceptions, such as testimonial games played after a player has left, provided the exception has a sound justification. Also, I understand that some players will continue to work with and be paid by a club after they have left in other capacities, such as coaching or working on match days in hospitality. These arrangements should be allowed to continue, but it must be clear that any payment that is received is for these services, set by reference to market rates and is not a way of further compensating players for playing for the club after they have left.

Whilst this is a sensible and obvious conclusion, I have an issue with the final part.

Firstly how long after a player has left should these apply? Should we still have to justify an appearance fee for Leon Lloyd or Martin Johnson?

What about Tom Croft or Mat Tait? Or going the other extreme Peter Wheeler? For instance Ben Youngs is likely to be gainfully employed as a general "club ambassador" in some hospitality role for his entire life if he wants it. Similarly Owen Farrell and Maro Itjoe will be highly in demand from Saracens for events for ever. When do they have to stop justifying it to the salary cap manager?

Secondly, what is the market rate for these guys? The market for these guys is very limited (only ex-players of each club, plus a few wider "personalities" of the game like Brian Moore or Andy Goode) and their demand/value is almost entirely determined by the size and wealth of the fan base involved. How do you set a market rate for Matt Smith to appear at a Stihl corporate event at Oakham School for instance?

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: SK 88 (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 17:59

His recommendations regarding sponsorships seems an unnecessary restriction on players and clubs to me.

For instance, Ben Youngs and George Ford (and I think Manu) are sponsored Addidas athletes. It may well be considered that locking those guys into become "pure" Addidas athletes by Addidas sponsoring our kit become a factor that ratchets all the sponsorship arrangements up. The club earns more because the brand wants the players, the players earn more because it is all in sync and able to be used more widely.

For a real example, Kyle Sinckler is now very valuable to Umbro as an Umbro athlete, he plays for England and Bristol both sponsored by Umbro so his value to them to appear in adverts etc, is now substantially more than when he played for Quins (addidas) & England (then Canterbury). If the cap manager decides a different way suddenly that's either all in the cap, or the player loses a high value sponsorship.

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: John Tee (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 18:48

None of these things in themselves are a problem if you do then the right way. Image rights for a very high profile player makes sense but it is the way they might reduce players salary, for example, and therefore fit under the cap, that is dishonest and the sole reason was to circumvent the cap rules.

So, player x could be on a salary of 250k but image rights around a million..? Who pays for the image rights...? Since clubs or club can not be trusted, as per a recent example, image rights have to be part of cap, because they are used in effect salary.
Therefore, the player x earns 1.25m which is fine..but it is in cap.

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: SK 88 (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 19:22

Image rights aren't excluded from the cap and never have been. They are explicitly included in the amounts included.

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: John Tee (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 23:32

Quote:
SK 88
Have you read the report?

There are way too many issues left but people say forget that and move on..
Bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

No sanction for the money man, no investigation of the roles of key officials, no investigation of players part...
All of which any self respecting admin of the game would have been all over....
The club continues in the RPL in 2021 and retains most of the squad after they recall most loan players for business as usual.

And Rugby will pretend it was no big thing...
Id say it never wanted to have to deal with this open secret in the game in the first place but was forced to after the DM published.
It then threw its woeful meaures at it which amounted to a fine to man who could brush it off and deducted points.
Relegation only came because they took that rather than open their books.

Totally woeful shamateur administration which is a joke .....which is also the way most view it... they cant even get incensed by a fundimental and systemic corruption of the game they love.

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: SK 88 (IP Logged)
Date: 15 May, 2020 09:17

Wray has had no sanction? He was forced out of Saracens. This report has a whole section suggesting ways to make the players liable in the future and explaining how they lie and have no reason to tell the truth at the moment.

Given the other drivel in that response I'm going to assume you haven't bothered to read the report. This report goes a long way towards setting the ground work so that the kind of things you want could be done in future.

They may ignore it and use CV-19 as an excuse, but I'm not feeling that as the mood music at the moment. I think these rules being in force for 21-22 (soonest possible) is fairly likely.

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: SimonG19 (IP Logged)
Date: 15 May, 2020 13:31

Wray forced out of Saracens? He's lost a couple of titles but is still funding The Cheats and issuing statements on their behalf isn't he?

Re: Noose review.
Posted by: John Tee (IP Logged)
Date: 15 May, 2020 13:42

Quote:
SK 88
Image rights aren't excluded from the cap and never have been. They are explicitly included in the amounts included.

How much are they paying Itoje then?
That must be a million out of budget..
I dont think he can be marquee?

Current Page: 1 of 2
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
We record all IP addresses on the Sportnetwork message boards which may be required by the authorities in case of defamatory or abusive comment. We seek to monitor the Message Boards at regular intervals. We do not associate Sportnetwork with any of the comments and do not take responsibility for any statements or opinions expressed on the Message Boards. If you have any cause for concern over any material posted here please let us know as soon as possible by e-mailing abuse@sportnetwork.net