Report This Message
Are you sure you want to report this post?

Re: Salary cap breaches revealed
Posted by: Marlow Nick
Date: 23/01/2020 15:12
Quote:
#wolfpack
Quote:
Marlow Nick
Quote:
Primavesi2
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

So Nigel (well known for his expertise in property deals) is now an expert in image rights?
You have to admit that even without the dispute about valuations this is sailing very close to the wind and pushing the spirit of the salary cap to breaking point
One of your highest profile players wants a pay rise. Low and behold Nigel decides to get into the image rights business and suddenly the player has 1.6M in their bank account. Maybe it was worth 1.6M, maybe it was worth 0.8M but either way surely this shouldn't be a transaction with a connected party.



I hope this sort of dodgy deal is explicitly banned in the next version of the cap rules. Nothing to stop Itoje selling his image rights - but not to any individual or company with any links to the club.

2 points -
1. Read the discussion between myself and stevene on this. It might help explain what actually happened and what the panel's judgment is based on.
2. Your post could very well start with "so the Salary Cap Manager (well known for his expertise in property deals) is now an expert in image rights?"

The whole point here is not that Saracens deliberately or even recklessly or whatever word you want overvalued the image rights at all. As per my earlier post - the panel specifically says that there "is force" in Saracens' rejections that the image rights were overvalued to account for lower pay, but it doesn't give an opinion because "it is not necessary to do so" (that is a quote - read the report).

The whole point is Saracens had to prove that the Salary Cap Manager had been unreasonable in relying on an alternative report. It did NOT say Saracens had tried to circumvent the salary cap at all. It did NOT say PWC (PRL's own auditors) were wrong. It did NOT say that the investors' price was inflated. It said that the SCM was reasonable in his opinion based on a different valuation.

Wolfpack. Sorry I wasn't clear (I did read your discussion). The point I was trying to make was irrespective of any dispute about a fair market valuation I personally find it extremely worrying that any club feels it meets the fair play spirit of the salary cap to be making payments to players outside the cap. It may well be just about acceptable under today's rules but I hope this loophole is closed very firmly. In my opinion any payments of any kind need to be included in the cap. No more buying image rights. No more getting a company you own to hire a player as an after dinner speaker. No more. This absolutely isn't banned today and absolutely does not just apply to Saracens but this must stop.

You may optionally give an explanation for why this post was reported, which will be sent to the moderators along with the report. This can help the moderator to understand why you reported the post.
Name:
Email:

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