Lord Myners' Review
Posted by: Sarriebone (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 11:33

Has been published. Among the changes proposed in the report, Lord Myners recommends:
-Greater flexibility for a Disciplinary Panel in relation to the range, and severity, of sanctions to ensure “the punishment fits the crime”, including the availability of sanctions such as suspensions and the removal of titles
-The promotion of greater transparency, which will broaden and deepen visibility and scrutiny
-Greater accountability for the board and the executives of the constituent clubs of Premiership Rugby
-Greater accountability for the players and their agents
-Increased reporting obligations on clubs
-Stronger investigatory powers vested in the salary cap manager function and increased resource to perform this function
-Making the regulations easier for clubs to understand, and for Premiership Rugby to administer






Summary and full report here: [www.premiershiprugby.com]

Re: Lord Myners' Review
Posted by: Innings (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 13:22

I've read it right through. Myners seems to have concluded that PRL is a business run on amateur lines, acting as law-maker, auditor, prosecuting authority and disciplinary tribunal with no external checks or balances. More than once he touches on actual or apparent conflicts of interest, he mentions a tendency to prefer secrecy, under the guise of confidentiality. He notes that many of the functions of PRL in its administrative and disciplinary capacity are capable of being mis-interpreted as owners of other clubs confuse the difference between the interest of equitable behaviour and seeking the best outcome for their own clubs.

After a first read and leaving aside any thoughts about how or why it came about that Sarries were clearly in the cross-hairs of PRL for years, I'd say that the clearest thing to emerge is that this report shows no party in a good light. PRL has a great to do now to implement the report, and a great deal of change of mindset if it is to succeed in setting the stall upright again.



Innings

Points win matches: tries win hearts and minds.

Re: Lord Myners' Review
Posted by: ComeOnSarries (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 16:37

Certainly worth a read by anyone who loves the game of rugby.

If you believe there is a need for a Salary Cap for the greater good of the game, then I find it hard to disagree with Lord Myner’s recommendations. I would like to challenge this assumption but that is another debate.

Given the limited nature of his Terms of Reference he was unable to make recommendations about PRL governance but given the Byzantine governance structure he describes and some examples of conflicts of Interest and poor governance he highlights I sincerely hope that PRL will investigate this aspect further.

From a Sarries perspective I thought one of the most telling comments was it reported that Nigel Wray had said that in 20 years he had never read the Salary Cap regulations. That would be defensible if and only if he had someone who was his right hand man that was 100% on top of the issue, which was clearly not the case. Whilst a big fan of all that Nigel has done for Saracens over 20 years I think this does reflect that he was bordering on reckless in his approach to the salary cap - although I would be the first to admit that we all make mistakes in life.

Re: Lord Myners' Review
Posted by: carlyleuk (IP Logged)
Date: 14 May, 2020 21:24

A very well investigated and concise report on the recent events. Similar to the Dyson report. We need more outsiders making decisions in the sport.

All I have wanted as a Saracens fans has been transparency on what has been going on.

The feeling of 'business left undone from the 2015' is quite revelling. Remarkable that this was done and shows the lack of Governance in the PRL. There was another club in 2015 and another two clubs last year. W need transparency to move forward..

To review SCM and Governance from the PRL. Make it up from external professionals with no club allegiance. The only way to get Trust back in the game.

Something to consider, most supporters and clubs do not Trust Saracens. But most clubs/supporters do not trust each other. I do not trust any of the other clubs.

Most clubs are within 4% of the senior cap! I'm sure any forensic investigation into any of the clubs would show some conflict with the SC.

Transparency and integrity is required. Unfortunately, in very short demand across most of the clubs (if this report is anything to go by).

Re: Lord Myners' Review
Posted by: nedrichards (IP Logged)
Date: 15 May, 2020 11:55

It's a good report and implementing all the recommendations would do a lot to restoring *my* trust in teams governed by it. But I can't imagine that an actual players union would allow a number of these provisions without some concessions elsewhere. Mark Evans' observation that the sport needs a Collective Bargaining Agreement rather than having each stakeholder talk past the others continues to ring true.

Re: Lord Myners' Review
Posted by: darktagnan (IP Logged)
Date: 15 May, 2020 12:08

I've read it as well. Very clearly written & a lot of good points especially re transparency & separation of responsibilities for the various processes.
Think the pressure is now on PRL to respond PUBLICLY with a strategy on how & when the proposals can be adopted - only after that can clubs, players & others work out their own duties & responsibilities.

Re: Lord Myners' Review
Posted by: OldMarovian (IP Logged)
Date: 15 May, 2020 18:19

The full report makes very interesting reading and I could see the implementation of these recommendations as having a significant impact on the game.

The two main issues I see are the self-interest of the clubs and their refusal to give up acting as judge, jury and executioner for their own fiefdom and I can see the RPA and players themselves having a major issue with the new levels of accountability asked of them (although I think it is exactly right that they should have this) Overall I think it's an excellent piece of work but I fear the chances of it getting taken on board are slim which would be a crying shame.

A few things really stuck out for me that seem to have attracted relatively little attention. The first is that Saracens are used as a metric for the success of the cap (European Champions) and yet the fact that we seemingly had to break the cap to achieve that surely undermines that point? Would it not be more accurate to say that Saracens aside the Premiership sides have been abject failures in Europe at least in part due to the constraints of the salary cap? I would be in favour of a cap reduction in the interests of making the sport more sustainable but I felt this point was a weakness of the report.

It's interesting to see Myners make a clear comment about the self-interest and score settling of members of PRL where Dyson merely hinted at this. Further, I think that his conclusions regarding loaned players should be the nail in the coffin of both Andrew Rogers, the SCM, and a shot across Darren Childs bows.
I think a charitable reading of Andrew Rogers time as SCM was that he was asleep at the wheel and for me his handling of the "image rights buy-out" (again a matter that the Dyson report alluded to being less than satisfactory) in particular cast serious questions as to his objectivity.
Myners says:
"Although the loan provisions were introduced for legitimate reasons to allow development players to get rugby experience at lower-level clubs, it is clear to me that they are now being used as a tool to keep payrolls below the cap"
So that's a tool that's being used by clubs (although interestingly it seems not Sarries, how much could we have saved by parking Figallo, Taylor, Rhodes, etc at Bedford for a year?) to fiddle the cap and the SCM is not interested???
Then when the matter is brought to the attention of Darren Childs by Dr Venter and others he says "nothing to see here the SCM has said it's all fine" and sweeps it under the carpet.
Now call me Mr Cynical but is any other Saracens supporter thinking that having secured the (rightful) sacrificial goat for all the things that are wrong in rugby that Rogers, Childs and the other members of PRL had no interest in wider scrutiny of how other clubs had been abusing the cap. In a system like that Myners suggests I don't see that PRL would be able to do that or as/more importantly "hide" the original offences by Saracens.

I doubt it will happen but I'd love to think that Sarries would make an official statement acknowledging our part in why we have got to this stage and embracing the report and its finding as we start afresh next season.

Re: Lord Myners' Review
Posted by: TonyTaff (IP Logged)
Date: 18 May, 2020 11:02

"... The decision ... to ensure relegation ... was technically flawed as it involved fellow clubs acting as judge and jury rather than independent justice being seen to be done."

No sh|t, Sherlock!



£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: Lord Myners' Review
Posted by: boomer! (IP Logged)
Date: 18 May, 2020 13:30

Quote:
TonyTaff
"... The decision ... to ensure relegation ... was technically flawed as it involved fellow clubs acting as judge and jury rather than independent justice being seen to be done."
No sh|t, Sherlock!

[https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/259/980/aaa.jpg



It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.

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