Current Page: 3 of 18
Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: JO'G (IP Logged)
Date: 20 December, 2019 09:50

I did like the suggestion from JR on Eggchasers that each and every player needed to sit down and write out their own personal Cap related information like a tax return. Help could be given bt a specialist rom the club, especially one armed with all the trips and items the player might forget were included.

The cap officer can then compare all the individual players ones with the clubs one to see if there are discrepancies. If a player is found not to have disclosed sometjnig that was also missing from the clubs disclosure, both should be fined The individual declarations should be totally confidential though and definitely not shared with other clubs

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Marlow Nick (IP Logged)
Date: 20 December, 2019 12:11

Quote:
Duncan96
He put together investor groupings by saying to his mates "I believe in this, I'm putting a bit of money in, will you join me?" The people he brought in were experienced business people who have helped these inexperienced (in a business sense) rugby players buck the trend of most start ups (which usually go bust) with help and advice well beyond the money (much better than the PRL could do it).
Duncan, To my mind putting players in touch with advisors to reduce the risk of start-up failure is to be applauded and for me comes under the category of training/education/advice/non-financial-support. Where I think we're on a slippery slope is when money starts changing hands. " I'm putting a bit of money in, will you join me?" could turn into "if you don't want to put money in then what if I gave you money and then you put an equivalent amount in" which risks becoming money laundering to get round the cap - and increase the temptation to use one of the current loopholes which might be already being used by some clubs.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Duncan96 (IP Logged)
Date: 20 December, 2019 12:38

I think where we are departing from each other Nick is that I really don't think it's rocket science during the pre approval process to see whether the shares and loans are on an arms length basis.

Is the percentage of the company being received appropriate for the risk taken? Is the interest rate and security on the loans reasonable? Are the salaries to the players working in the business reasonable?

Those really aren't difficult questions for a professional to determine. If someone really wants to cheat there are a lot easier ways to do it which you've already identified yourself (offshore payments etc).

I've outlined above the very real benefits of allowing bona fide player businesses to be supported by clubs. I can't see that it's in the best interest of the game to prevent it for the reasons you give. Especially as I know from experience that the best, most committed advisors are those who have risked some money in you.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Blanchefleur (IP Logged)
Date: 24 December, 2019 17:53

Duncan and Nick I think you both have very good ideas about how to improve the existing arrangements. However should the rules be tightened to such a degree that a player was effectively prevented from realizing his earnings potential, it would only take one disaffected player to bring a case possibly with the backing of the RPA for a restriction of earnings. With the cap much higher in France and non existent in Ireland there would be ample evidence to hand.
It's happened before where an individual changed the face of sport...Kolpak....and could easily happen again

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Roderick Flashheart (IP Logged)
Date: 29 December, 2019 21:59

".........there are supporters of clubs who have seen coaches get sacked and players leave in part because of Saracens cheating.Ē Rob Baxter 29 Dec 2019.

Really ? Can we make a rough guess to ascertain which coaches and players left their clubs due to Saracens supremacy for the 3 seasons covered in the adjudication?

...or is this a throwaway comment made on spur of the moment during a time of jubilation, to a media hungry for such quotes ?

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: BlackheathSaracen (IP Logged)
Date: 30 December, 2019 10:48

I am sure you can make that case Ricardo though its a somewhat flawed argument.

I'd guess he'd claim on the basis that the squad wasn't in cap that any team that played benefited. So even our second team beating Falcons contributed to them going down. The fact that we won the league maybe means that teams whose targets were to be top 4 or 6 or not relegated didn't make it and coaches payed the price.

What all that misses out is that if Saracens hadn't breached the cap they would still have been playing, they wouldn't have mysteriously disappeared from the equation. Maybe they wouldn't have got so far in Europe and so could have concentrated on the Premiership? Maybe those European games wouldn't have convinced Jones that he needed to denude the squad of a third of its starting XV for almost half or every season?

Who knows? maybe Chiefs one actual win wouldn't have come off the back of just beating a thoroughly knackered Saracens team who has played a European Champions Cup final and two other huge finals in the week and month before? Lots of things one could hypothesise on being different.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Duncan96 (IP Logged)
Date: 30 December, 2019 18:22

Quote:
BlackheathSaracen
I am sure you can make that case Ricardo though its a somewhat flawed argument.
I'd guess he'd claim on the basis that the squad wasn't in cap that any team that played benefited. So even our second team beating Falcons contributed to them going down. The fact that we won the league maybe means that teams whose targets were to be top 4 or 6 or not relegated didn't make it and coaches payed the price.

What all that misses out is that if Saracens hadn't breached the cap they would still have been playing, they wouldn't have mysteriously disappeared from the equation. Maybe they wouldn't have got so far in Europe and so could have concentrated on the Premiership? Maybe those European games wouldn't have convinced Jones that he needed to denude the squad of a third of its starting XV for almost half or every season?

Who knows? maybe Chiefs one actual win wouldn't have come off the back of just beating a thoroughly knackered Saracens team who has played a European Champions Cup final and two other huge finals in the week and month before? Lots of things one could hypothesise on being different.

All good points here but remember: the effect of us breaching the cap was Liam Williams. If we hadn't signed him we wouldn't have been over. So maybe Chiefs can complain about last season's final and maybe we wouldn't have beaten them with another winger. The rest of the time: @#$%& all difference really

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: EXDJ (IP Logged)
Date: 30 December, 2019 19:47

Werenít Sarries meant to have been roughly £650k over the cap each season for the past three seasons (16-17, 17-18 and 18-19)? And didnít Williams join for the 17-18 season?

Also isnít he meant to be on roughly £350k per year? He doesnít feature on any of the lists of highest paid Prem players which start around £400k+

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Duncan96 (IP Logged)
Date: 30 December, 2019 22:07

Quote:
EXDJ
Werenít Sarries meant to have been roughly £650k over the cap each season for the past three seasons (16-17, 17-18 and 18-19)? And didnít Williams join for the 17-18 season?
Also isnít he meant to be on roughly £350k per year? He doesnít feature on any of the lists of highest paid Prem players which start around £400k+

In 16-17 Exeter beat us in the semi final. So the Salary Cap breach didn't make a difference to them that season. (The next season Liam Williams was largely injured).
I have not read that the figure is £650k, no. I have consistently read that the level of fine implies £600 (not that it may make any difference as you have to add on National Insurance) and Liam Williams came as a British Lions star with great competition from many clubs for his signature. I very much doubt he was on as little as £350k but as per the next point, no one knows for sure outside the club and salary cap manager. Maybe we have to add on a young player, maybe not. Doesn't make much difference.

Rugby players salaries aren't published btw. Certain websites might pluck them out of thin air but they don't know.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: EXDJ (IP Logged)
Date: 30 December, 2019 22:24

Quite a few different sources around eg:
[www.walesonline.co.uk]

[www.ruck.co.uk]

Of course there is no guarantee this is correct - you could call it informed speculation. If Williams is currently earning £600k (ie double what seems to be the accepted figure) then he is taking a whopping pay-cut to go back to Wales on £400k.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: BlackheathSaracen (IP Logged)
Date: 30 December, 2019 22:32

Duncan96 I am far from certain but like EXDJ I have heard several reports that his wage was around the £300K mark, some lower which would tie into him coming here for slightly less than what he may have been worth to go to a club where all he was after was money. I certainly don't think a salary of double that would be right.

Also there's a fair point to be made that that money could conceivably have been spent in a number of ways. One Marquee type player or quite a lot of junior ones. I am not sure we'll ever get clarity there either. My point was only really to say whilst I appreciate some of the point Baxter made I think the assumption that if we hadn't spent over we wouldn't have been competing is a touch flawed.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Duncan96 (IP Logged)
Date: 31 December, 2019 09:49

Ok both Iím happy to stand corrected. It looks like the effect of the salary cap breach is 2 players.

It is striking how cheaply players will come to Saracens though.

And look, itís a shame the loans were made, they were clearly against the rules and we canít complain about the punishment but my fundamental point, that the knee jerk bleatings of Care, Dallaglio, etc and now Baxter need a little more thought and analysis behind them in terms of sounding off about what the effect of the breach was.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Sarriebone (IP Logged)
Date: 31 December, 2019 11:18

Quote:
EXDJ
Williams is currently earning £600k (ie double what seems to be the accepted figure) then he is taking a whopping pay-cut to go back to Wales on £400k.

Surely not, we've repeatedly been told that no-one moves club for less money! (Sm161)

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Marlow Nick (IP Logged)
Date: 31 December, 2019 12:13

Quote:
Duncan96
Ok both Iím happy to stand corrected. It looks like the effect of the salary cap breach is 2 players..

Duncan,

That's not how most of us are doing the maths. I don't believe Saracens have an unusually large squad £600k wis unlikely to have paid for one or two extra players but rather upgrading quality within fixed squad quantity. If one assumes an international costs £100k per player more than a premiership player then £600k buys you much more strength in depth which is what we see in Saracens squad.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Roger G (IP Logged)
Date: 31 December, 2019 15:04

Quote:
Marlow Nick
... If one assumes....

Here we go again. Never mind the lack of firm public detail about what the breach actually was, let's just assume stuff to make one particular narrative work. I'd be called an apologist or a denyer (I'm not - I'm deeply @#$%& off by what our management have done), if I were to counter-assume that, since the offending investments (not salary) were apparently mostly made to world class internationals who are generally thought to be on a fair whack anyway (see another thread which estimates Faz and Maro to be on ~£750k+), then there probably was no extra £600k spent on other players anyway, and the squad would have been exactly the same size and quality. This is probably equally as incorrect as your assumptions. Neither of us know really.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Sarriebone (IP Logged)
Date: 31 December, 2019 15:31

Your assumption that our squad was illegally assembled is as presumptious as any of our assumptions that the payments made no difference to our squad. But it's amazing that our assumptions are deluded where yours are purely factual.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Marlow Nick (IP Logged)
Date: 31 December, 2019 15:44

I find it fascinating how a handful of Saracens` supporters are still in denial.

Somehow Duncan seems to have convinced himself that any overpayment went on one or two players who shouldn't really be counted because they were injured for some of the matches
But Roger G goes further. These extra payments weren't for extra players or to recruit or retain better players. No these were for players that were already well paid and didn't want any more but Nigel felt he should give them additional funds because he's a nice chap concerned about their retirement planning.

Neither of you seem to understand that there is a single budget. You cannot conveniently ascribe the overspend to one player or one arrangement. Nigel was caught overspending the total allowed for an entire squad by almost 10% (who knows how much more wasn't found)

The sad thing is that with your fantastic academy and brilliant coaching Saracens would most likely have won many trophies without cheating but Nigel just had to push the rules that little bit further and before Duncan and Roger claim it was a mistake... No Nigel has acknowledged that he was reckless in pushing the rules too far. The intent was to gain an advantage. The mistake was in getting caught.

My sincere best wishes to all Saracens fans who accept that what happened was unacceptable. My thanks to Duncan, Roger and the other people in denial for making me laugh



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 31/12/2019 15:51 by Marlow Nick.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Sarriebone (IP Logged)
Date: 31 December, 2019 15:59

I don't think anyone is in denial, I think we've all acknowleged that we broke the rules. And that is as much as we know.
Anything beyond that is assumption on your part as well as on ours.

Would the player recieving those investments have stayed without them? We'll likely never know, even if those players come out and say they made no difference it wouldn't be believed.

Assuming Faz is one of our marquee players then what's the point of the investment to increase his income as it doesn't matter what we pay him anyway?

Liam Williams is reported to be moving back to Wales on a £400k contract, so presumably we were paying him less than that as no one moves for less money as has been pointed out numerous times...

Lifted from Wasps forum:
Let's assume that Vincent Koch and Owen Farrell are the 2 marquee players, and that Itoje is on the rumoured £750k.

Their highest paid players are presumably therefore:

Itoje - £750k
Billy V - £500k
Mako V - £500k
Liam Williams - £500k*
Jamie George - £400k
George Kruis - £400k
Elliott Daly - £400k

(*see above)
Those 7 listed above come to £3.45m

I would also assume that Brad Barritt, Richard Wigglesworth and Will Skelton are well paid too.
Adding these 3 in as well, that's probably half their cap gone in 10 players + 2 marquees.
Their squad is 41 players, so the remaining 29 players are sharing ~£4m between them, which is about £140k each


On the reckless behaviour, there are many interpretations of that.
*Caution the following contains speculation*
Let's say Billy and Mako go to Nigel and say: "We're thinking of buying some property, you've done quite a bit of that any chance of some help?"
Nigel: "Sure what were you thinking of?"
B&M: "We've found a property we think would be good, but we can't borrow enough"
Nigel: "Ok, I'll put in some money as a loan but I'll take a share of the profits in return"
B&M: "What about the SC regs?"
Nigel: "It's fine, there have been investments with players before and it's never been a problem, I've even had my lawyers check it out"

Now that would be well intentioned but reckless on NW's behalf.

And yes I'll be called deluded/in denial/away with the fairies for the above, but we don't have any proof to deny that's not what happened, purely people seeing what they want to see on both sides of the argument.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 31/12/2019 16:07 by Sarriebone.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Roger G (IP Logged)
Date: 31 December, 2019 17:15

Quote:
Marlow Nick
I find it fascinating how a handful of Saracens` supporters are still in denial.

Nick, I wish you a very happy New Year. I also hope you make a resolution to read what is posted, take it at face value, and not try to put your own spin on everything. I am not in denial, neither do I know whether the assumptions I posted are any closer to the truth than yours. I said in my post that I was severely peed off with the management....if only you'd read that bit. The only thing I deny is that anybody, outside of the very few club directors who have had access to the full report, can have the slightest clue about the details of the offence, and what difference it might have made to our squad.

Re: EVERYTHING SALARYCAP RELATED
Posted by: Duncan96 (IP Logged)
Date: 31 December, 2019 20:24

Quote:
Roger G
Quote:
Marlow Nick
I find it fascinating how a handful of Saracens` supporters are still in denial.

Nick, I wish you a very happy New Year. I also hope you make a resolution to read what is posted, take it at face value, and not try to put your own spin on everything. I am not in denial, neither do I know whether the assumptions I posted are any closer to the truth than yours. I said in my post that I was severely peed off with the management....if only you'd read that bit. The only thing I deny is that anybody, outside of the very few club directors who have had access to the full report, can have the slightest clue about the details of the offence, and what difference it might have made to our squad.

I also don't understand what is in denial about saying "we broke the rules and shouldn't have done therefore deserve the punishment" which I've said.

And for the life of me I can't understand your point about the salary cap Nick. It's just simple maths. You add up your salaries, you take off those for excluded players, England allowances etc and if you are over the cap you've broken the rules. If you knock off the salaries of one or two players and you are not over the cap, you wouldn't have broken the rules if you hadn't signed them. It's not denial and it is the way it works.

I think there's a little bit of denial going on the other way about the effect of the loans which caused us to be in breach because the Dallaglio disciples want it to be worse than it is.

But hey, It's New Years Eve, I'm cracking open a drink, you won't agree with me and thats fine smiling smiley Have a great New Year.

Current Page: 3 of 18
This Thread has been closed
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