Current Page: 2 of 3
Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: Ken I L Worth (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 08:35

Just to make it clear.

Saracens accepted relegation, PRL didn't force it upon them
For some unknown reason they didn't want to open their books for 'full scrutinisation' from that everyone makes the obvious conclusion that by choosing relegation (arguably a punishment out of proportion to what has been declared) Saracens have chosen the lesser of the two evils.

We will probably never know what the other evil was, but sadly it almost certainly would have assigned a once great club to a shameful history.

For the sake of the game we all love, hopefully we will never know.

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: Exeforever (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 08:46

There is a serious chance here of two issues being conflated.

Dyson's report led to the fine and 35 point deduction at which point relegation was not mentioned.

Saracens' subsequent refusal to trim the budget to bring you under the cap for this season led the other Premiership Chairmen to decide to impose relegation or a forensic audit. You chose the former.

Your management has been the architect of your downfall and to blame it on outside parties or claim that "it's only 2m over three years" is utterly irrelevant. Had you trimmed your budget, or even shown evidence of cooperation, you would not be being relegated and would have got away with a deduction that might have stopped you getting into the playoffs this year but probably wouldn't have stopped you getting into Europe either by qualification or by winning it outright and a fine that is small change to a man of Wray's wealth. It is evidence of how unfit for purpose Sarries' senior management is that they couldn't or wouldn't grasp the chance that they were offered.

I have every sympathy with you the supporters and particularly those of you who have forked out for a valueless season ticket that they won't refund but just because the original report doesn't reveal further skulduggery that doesn't exonerate either the original cheating nor the attitude that the Club's management has displayed prior to Goulding's comments this week.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 23/01/2020 08:47 by Exeforever.

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: myleftboot (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 08:47

The stripping of previous titles, as a fan, would be a greater evil

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: #wolfpack (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 09:11

Provided that NW paid the full valuation provided to him by PWC for Itoje's image rights, I cannot see how this could possibly count towards the salary cap. I assume the 103 page document provides some justification.

Apart from the Ashton excuse (which is clearly rubbish and I call bulls***), there is nothing here which is a black and white.

Except of course from the panel's recommendation relegation would be disproportionate.

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: Primavesi2 (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 09:11

Quote:
Marlow Nick
Maro: I want more salary
Nigel: what about if I bought shares in your image rights company
PWC: a 30% stake would be 1.6m
Maro: OK then I want 1.6m for 30%
Nigel: sounds like a fair market price based on the valuation of one of the biggest consultancy firms in the world, one that is trusted by premier rugby.

RECKLESS is being very generous

Fixed it for you

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: #wolfpack (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 09:22

Quote:
GHA
Quote:
#wolfpack
Except of course from the panel's recommendation relegation would be disproportionate.

Based on the 'transgressions for the previous three seasons. And the punishment for the previous three seasons was a fine and two points deductions of 35 points which, given concurrently, meant Sarries weren't relegated.

Sarries chose relegation over opening the books for this season, didn't they?

<sigh>

Read the report: "It is thought the club did not resist an investigative audit at the end of this season[i][/i] but they did resist a three-year retrospective audit on the grounds that it would be unfair - in the club's view - if the same scrutiny wasn't applied to every Premiership club"

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: GHA (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 09:25

Quote:
#wolfpack
Quote:
GHA
Quote:
#wolfpack
Except of course from the panel's recommendation relegation would be disproportionate.

Based on the 'transgressions for the previous three seasons. And the punishment for the previous three seasons was a fine and two points deductions of 35 points which, given concurrently, meant Sarries weren't relegated.

Sarries chose relegation over opening the books for this season, didn't they?

<sigh>

Read the report: "It is thought the club did not resist an investigative audit at the end of this season[i][/i] but they did resist a three-year retrospective audit on the grounds that it would be unfair - in the club's view - if the same scrutiny wasn't applied to every Premiership club"

Apologies, I obviously haven't read as much of the detail as you. So the club resisted a three year retrospective audit which would've been for this season and the previous two, whilst the report covers the previous three seasons but not this one?

Do you think the club are cutting off their nose to spite their face by choosing relegation because 'the same scrutiny wasn't applied to every Premiership club?'

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: Statesman (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 09:29

The one new thing in the report for me is that there are very clear tax implications if whats written in the article is accurate. I would expect HMRC to be getting very interested in this.

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: #wolfpack (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 09:35

Quote:
GHA
Quote:
#wolfpack
Quote:
GHA
Quote:
#wolfpack
Except of course from the panel's recommendation relegation would be disproportionate.

Based on the 'transgressions for the previous three seasons. And the punishment for the previous three seasons was a fine and two points deductions of 35 points which, given concurrently, meant Sarries weren't relegated.

Sarries chose relegation over opening the books for this season, didn't they?

<sigh>

Read the report: "It is thought the club did not resist an investigative audit at the end of this season[i][/i] but they did resist a three-year retrospective audit on the grounds that it would be unfair - in the club's view - if the same scrutiny wasn't applied to every Premiership club"

Apologies, I obviously haven't read as much of the detail as you. So the club resisted a three year retrospective audit which would've been for this season and the previous two, whilst the report covers the previous three seasons but not this one?

Do you think the club are cutting off their nose to spite their face by choosing relegation because 'the same scrutiny wasn't applied to every Premiership club?'

It isn't really a straight choice though. If other clubs were open to having their accounts retrospectively audited (and Leicester Tigers appear to have suggested they are at least), then it sounds as though Saracens will also have their accounts audited. Is the ball not in their court?

I am also not clear what else this retrospective audit would have shown that wasn't looked into by this panel - genuine point rather than an attempt at point scoring, I don't know how much material the panel looked at previously: did it not cover the last three years accounts? I guess we'll find out when the full judgment is revealed.

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: McSaracens (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 09:38

What I don't understand is the Sky report stating Itoje didn't turn up to any MBN events.....

I was lucky enough to attend one last year & guess who was there, Farrell and Itoje!



I believe it might have been said before, but there is something special happening at Saracens, and I want to be part of it. - Nils Mordt

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: DoubleChampions (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 09:50

Quote:
GHA
Quote:
#wolfpack
Quote:
GHA
Quote:
#wolfpack
Except of course from the panel's recommendation relegation would be disproportionate.

Based on the 'transgressions for the previous three seasons. And the punishment for the previous three seasons was a fine and two points deductions of 35 points which, given concurrently, meant Sarries weren't relegated.

Sarries chose relegation over opening the books for this season, didn't they?

<sigh>

Read the report: "It is thought the club did not resist an investigative audit at the end of this season[i][/i] but they did resist a three-year retrospective audit on the grounds that it would be unfair - in the club's view - if the same scrutiny wasn't applied to every Premiership club"

Apologies, I obviously haven't read as much of the detail as you. So the club resisted a three year retrospective audit which would've been for this season and the previous two, whilst the report covers the previous three seasons but not this one?

Do you think the club are cutting off their nose to spite their face by choosing relegation because 'the same scrutiny wasn't applied to every Premiership club?'

The ultimatum was audit and return the trophies - no club would agree to that.

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: daz_71 (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 09:56

Quote:
McSaracens
What I don't understand is the Sky report stating Itoje didn't turn up to any MBN events.....
I was lucky enough to attend one last year & guess who was there, Farrell and Itoje!

Just seen David Flatman saying exactly this on Twitter. Flat's I believe is hired by MBN to host a lot of these events so would know. Also many pictures doing the rounds on SM of Maro at such events.

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: TonyTaff (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 10:04

Quote:
daz_71
Quote:
McSaracens
What I don't understand is the Sky report stating Itoje didn't turn up to any MBN events.....
I was lucky enough to attend one last year & guess who was there, Farrell and Itoje!

Just seen David Flatman saying exactly this on Twitter. Flat's I believe is hired by MBN to host a lot of these events so would know. Also many pictures doing the rounds on SM of Maro at such events.

However, Dyson et al point out that the payments were not on a per appearance basis, and therefore were salary not commercial income.

It wouldn't have been difficult to structure the arrangement so that it didn't resemble salary, but that wasn't done.



721.05 (*) donated to the Saracens Foundation due to visits to the Sarries frontpage [www.rugbynetwork.net]

Please read and submit articles for publication.


(*) As at October 31, 2018.

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: GHA (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 10:07

Quote:
#wolfpack
Quote:
GHA
Quote:
#wolfpack
Quote:
GHA
Quote:
#wolfpack
Except of course from the panel's recommendation relegation would be disproportionate.

Based on the 'transgressions for the previous three seasons. And the punishment for the previous three seasons was a fine and two points deductions of 35 points which, given concurrently, meant Sarries weren't relegated.

Sarries chose relegation over opening the books for this season, didn't they?

<sigh>

Read the report: "It is thought the club did not resist an investigative audit at the end of this season[i][/i] but they did resist a three-year retrospective audit on the grounds that it would be unfair - in the club's view - if the same scrutiny wasn't applied to every Premiership club"

Apologies, I obviously haven't read as much of the detail as you. So the club resisted a three year retrospective audit which would've been for this season and the previous two, whilst the report covers the previous three seasons but not this one?

Do you think the club are cutting off their nose to spite their face by choosing relegation because 'the same scrutiny wasn't applied to every Premiership club?'

It isn't really a straight choice though. If other clubs were open to having their accounts retrospectively audited (and Leicester Tigers appear to have suggested they are at least), then it sounds as though Saracens will also have their accounts audited. Is the ball not in their court?

I am also not clear what else this retrospective audit would have shown that wasn't looked into by this panel - genuine point rather than an attempt at point scoring, I don't know how much material the panel looked at previously: did it not cover the last three years accounts? I guess we'll find out when the full judgment is revealed.

Didn't this panel look at the previous three seasons only - so a new 'full' audit would've included this season and gone into more detail? Only guessing, obviously...

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: #wolfpack (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 10:18

Quote:
GHA
Quote:
#wolfpack
Quote:
GHA
Quote:
#wolfpack
Quote:
GHA
Quote:
#wolfpack
Except of course from the panel's recommendation relegation would be disproportionate.

Based on the 'transgressions for the previous three seasons. And the punishment for the previous three seasons was a fine and two points deductions of 35 points which, given concurrently, meant Sarries weren't relegated.

Sarries chose relegation over opening the books for this season, didn't they?

<sigh>

Read the report: "It is thought the club did not resist an investigative audit at the end of this season[i][/i] but they did resist a three-year retrospective audit on the grounds that it would be unfair - in the club's view - if the same scrutiny wasn't applied to every Premiership club"

Apologies, I obviously haven't read as much of the detail as you. So the club resisted a three year retrospective audit which would've been for this season and the previous two, whilst the report covers the previous three seasons but not this one?

Do you think the club are cutting off their nose to spite their face by choosing relegation because 'the same scrutiny wasn't applied to every Premiership club?'

It isn't really a straight choice though. If other clubs were open to having their accounts retrospectively audited (and Leicester Tigers appear to have suggested they are at least), then it sounds as though Saracens will also have their accounts audited. Is the ball not in their court?

I am also not clear what else this retrospective audit would have shown that wasn't looked into by this panel - genuine point rather than an attempt at point scoring, I don't know how much material the panel looked at previously: did it not cover the last three years accounts? I guess we'll find out when the full judgment is revealed.

Didn't this panel look at the previous three seasons only - so a new 'full' audit would've included this season and gone into more detail? Only guessing, obviously...

But as per the original point - Saracens did not resist an investigative audit at the end of the season (THIS season).

Did they resist an audit carried out now on 23 January 2020? I don't know - but judgement based on where you are on 23 January 2020 would be completely iniquitous because the salary cap year runs from July-June. Had you judged Saracens now (as has been pointed out elsewhere), Saracens would not benefit from any England credits picked up during the 6N or injury credits (because the season hasn't ended).

My suspicion is that is exactly why it was demanded now and not at the end of the season (like every other club). But that is a suspicion from a suspicious mind.

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: daz_71 (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 10:25

A lot of people are saying we are being relegated because we are over the cap this season. The questions I have is why are we over the cap? Are co-investments continuing or are the previous co-investments being pro-rataed over the length of player's contracts?

I have no doubt (in my head) that these co-investments are a way of circumventing the cap however I still struggle to see how these investments can categorically be seen as salary unless it is written in to contracts. On the face of it these co-investments look a lot like co-investments!

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: Gray_Lensman (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 11:00

Co-investments look odd. Firstly because they don't seem to be on normal commercial terms (eg. interest free loans'). The second is that there don't seem to have been any of these vehicles set up for 'marquee' players (or indeed many other players). If the intention behind them was a laudable desire to help a post-rugby career then logically all players should have had these arrangements. Not providing them for those exempt from the cap makes it look like only high profile players within the cap were offered such co-investments based on criteria other than future careers.

As for avoiding an audit, the rules provide for an audit at any time. Under the rules Saracens should have agreed to that. Clearly a three year audit is an unusual step and admittedly one not provided for in the rules. But it isn't an unreasonable request given the timescale over which salary cap cheating was found to have taken place. In particular it is easy to see why other members of PRL may have felt a lack of trust in Saracens given both the previously discovered breaking of the rules and the fact that repeated statements that Saracens was compliant this season were revealed not to be true. To request that other clubs should submit to a similar audit is a ridiculous demand: they haven't been found to have broken the salary cap rules over several seasons. That is true of one club only and a club that has shown itself to untrustworthy.

It is only supposition but it is unsurprising that many outside observers will take the view that a decision to accept relegation rather than agree to an audit indicates that there is something disreputable or dishonest that would be revealed by such an audit. After all, even this leaked report says that relegation would be disproportionate to the offences revealed and yet Saracens chose to accept it rather than agree to the entirely reasonable request from PRL for openness and transparency. I'm usually uncomfortable with the argument that 'you've nothing to hide if you've done nothing wrong' but Saracens have shown a willingness to do wrong and may well have something to hide.

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: Chops3 (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 11:39

It's widely reported in the press that the demand was not just for an audit, but also that the trophies had to be given up. Maybe this is what Saracens considered to be a step to far (on top of the fine, points deduction and mid season audit) in regard to punishments they were willing to accept?

Daily Telegraph 19th January
Faced with the demand from rival clubs for Saracens to open their books for a forensic audit, and hand back their Premiership trophies from 2018 and 2019 or accept automatic relegation, the club opted for the latter.

Daily Mail 23rd January
Sources have indicated that Saracens were presented with an ultimatum cut 2m from their playing budget with immediate effect, hand back their trophies and open their books up to forensic accountants.

The Times 18th January
The English and European champions are resigned to another 35-point deduction for breaching salary-cap regulations again this season, having failed to meet a league demand that they cut their wage bill by 2 million and return the Premiership trophies they won in 2018 and 2019

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: DoubleChampions (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 11:41

Quote:
Chops3
It's widely reported in the press that the demand was not just for an audit, but also that the trophies had to be given up. Maybe this is what Saracens considered to be a step to far (on top of the fine, points deduction and mid season audit) in regard to punishments they were willing to accept?
Daily Telegraph 19th January
Faced with the demand from rival clubs for Saracens to open their books for a forensic audit, and hand back their Premiership trophies from 2018 and 2019 or accept automatic relegation, the club opted for the latter.

Daily Mail 23rd January
Sources have indicated that Saracens were presented with an ultimatum cut 2m from their playing budget with immediate effect, hand back their trophies and open their books up to forensic accountants.

The Times 18th January
The English and European champions are resigned to another 35-point deduction for breaching salary-cap regulations again this season, having failed to meet a league demand that they cut their wage bill by 2 million and return the Premiership trophies they won in 2018 and 2019

+1 - no club would have agreed to this



+1

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: Statesman (IP Logged)
Date: 23 January, 2020 11:48

Quote:
DoubleChampions
Quote:
Chops3
It's widely reported in the press that the demand was not just for an audit, but also that the trophies had to be given up. Maybe this is what Saracens considered to be a step to far (on top of the fine, points deduction and mid season audit) in regard to punishments they were willing to accept?
Daily Telegraph 19th January
Faced with the demand from rival clubs for Saracens to open their books for a forensic audit, and hand back their Premiership trophies from 2018 and 2019 or accept automatic relegation, the club opted for the latter.

Daily Mail 23rd January
Sources have indicated that Saracens were presented with an ultimatum cut 2m from their playing budget with immediate effect, hand back their trophies and open their books up to forensic accountants.

The Times 18th January
The English and European champions are resigned to another 35-point deduction for breaching salary-cap regulations again this season, having failed to meet a league demand that they cut their wage bill by 2 million and return the Premiership trophies they won in 2018 and 2019

+1 - no club would have agreed to this

DC, I see you are happy to quote the DM when it suits you! Can you find any direct statement from either Saracens or the PRL that references the trophies? I cant. Furthermore, if it was the case that this had been demanded why would your Chairman not have referenced it in his e-mail? Its a far more powerful rebuttal of the audit demand than the one he offered!

Current Page: 2 of 3
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