By Penalty Try
#8229
What are Sarries waiting for?

As soon as the opted not to appeal the verdict and the sanctions, they knew they had to bring their structure below the salary cap. At a minimum, they should have all points earned with and over budget squad removed. Hence, they go back to -35 points the day they come back under £7m.
By Olyy
#8232
Apparently the issue is that the contracts have termination clauses in (redundancy pay, basically) and these payouts contribute towards the cap - so unless the players agree to wave that (and why would they? they're walking into unemployment through no fault of their own) there's not a lot Saracens can do about it.
By Elgar
#8238
Exactly as Olyy says above, it's hard to see how they can get their wage liability below the cap until the start of next season at the earliest.

It's hard to see where the punishment of relegation comes from. As was discussed a number of times when the penalty that they did receive was announced, relegation simply isn't a sanction made available under the relevant regs.

Unless the regs can be interpreted to enable a similar points deduction being made at the end of this season in respect of this season's non-compliance (whereas the earlier penalty related to two or three seasons' prior breaches). Which would have the same practical effect or relegation without that being the penalty itself.
By TVM
#8241
Olyy wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:13 am
they're walking into unemployment through no fault of their own)
That statement does rely to a certain extent on thinking that [insert international here] thinks 'wow i must be really special to be on this wedge, as everyone else who are to the casual observer equivalent level internationals to me must be on less because of the salary cap' - and surely they aren't that naive.

I know there was this whole investments thing, which you could argue they were missold if they were told it was all kosher...there is still required a certain amount of self-kidding to think this kindly older gentleman would have entered into investments with them in a non Saracens world. Becasue if you accept he wouldn't - surely you have to accept that they accepted it was a form of salary and - if it was sold as not against the rules - they must have been able to tell it was against the spirit. It's all in theory obviously, but that is just a conclusion from available evidence.

Which to me is pretty cynical. So whilst the players have not broken any rules....to say they are innocent is over simplification.
By DaveAitch
#8243
How could Saracens, though, immediately bring themselves within the salary cap? One might have expected that would have been realised (and perhaps was) by the panel making the decision. Something, perhaps, should have written in to the original judgement (I'm presuming here that it wasn't) that Saracens had to conform by, say, the start of next season.
By Elgar
#8244
TVM wrote:
Olyy wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 9:13 am
they're walking into unemployment through no fault of their own)
That statement does rely to a certain extent on thinking that [insert international here] thinks 'wow i must be really special to be on this wedge, as everyone else who are to the casual observer equivalent level internationals to me must be on less because of the salary cap' - and surely they aren't that naive.

I know there was this whole investments thing, which you could argue they were missold if they were told it was all kosher...there is still required a certain amount of self-kidding to think this kindly older gentleman would have entered into investments with them in a non Saracens world. Becasue if you accept he wouldn't - surely you have to accept that they accepted it was a form of salary and - if it was sold as not against the rules - they must have been able to tell it was against the spirit. It's all in theory obviously, but that is just a conclusion from available evidence.

Which to me is pretty cynical. So whilst the players have not broken any rules....to say they are innocent is over simplification.


Agree that the players were either cynical or naïve, as you suggest.

But that isn't enough, in my view, to require them to share the financial risk or burden with the club for the penalty. The penalty is for activities that the club concocted, executed, and as you say - as far as we can tell - held out to the players as legitimate.

As PAYE employees, we need give no consideration to whether our employers are properly accounting for their tax liabilities. If they aren't doing so correctly, the risk shouldn't fall on staff members to make good from their pay, even such staff might feel comparatively well paid in their field. I think that parallel works perfectly for the Sarries players in this instance.
Olyy liked this
By Olyy
#8247
Aye, players will have been aware/suspicious of salary cap activity but at the end of the day it's up to the club to balance the books.
You expect Maro Itoje to say "Actually that contract looks a little too sweet, can we knock a zero off?".

The investments thing is way dodgier, however - would be interested to know whether Sarries spun it to the players as all above board or as something they should keep schtum. I lean more towards the former considering how blatant the company names were, however - as stated, you'd have to be pretty naive not to question all this extra money on top of your contract.
By DaveAitch
#8249
Why should the players know something doesn't add up. It would seem to have taken the financial brains in Premiership Rugby about three years to decide that was the case.
By TVM
#8255
It took the premiership brains three years to PROVE. Yet everyone KNEW. So the players cannot morally - in my view - claim total ignorance. We are talking about levels of sympathy for financial decisions they have made - not culpability in a court of law here.

I am not saying that players should be punished.

I am saying that they probably should have accepted this as a risk and this is a consequence.

No one expect Maro Itoje to say 'knock a zero off' - however, he should probably accept there is a risk that the gravy train that he will have benefitted from very nicely indeed could become derailed, and that he'd have to deal with that. WIth enough thought they could quite probably have thought, somethings going to give here.

Maybe its heartless, but in this sort of thing its live by the sword, die by the sword. They benefitted nicely thank you very much, but that's over now.

I am not suggesting they should be punished or anything. But they shouldn't be coddled against the result of this either - they aren't victims, they did very nicely. Thay aren't even being asked to give anything back - they simply have to operate in the same universe as their league colleagues now.
GHA liked this
By SimonG
#8261
DaveAitch wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 11:51 am
How could Saracens, though, immediately bring themselves within the salary cap? ....
Open bank accounts in South Africa and/or Japan -> get former Chairman to privately fund them -> terminate a few contracts with no further payment -> terminated players go on holiday to South Africa and/or sign for Japanese clubs -> bank accounts strangely are reduced of funds.
User avatar
By MikeGC
#8275
I was intrigued to read that severance payments to players seeking alternative employment (i.e. Williams,en route to Scarlets, etc.) counts within the Salary Cap. So offloading players is equally fraught.
By ageinghoody
#8282
Penalty Try wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:56 am
What are Sarries waiting for?

As soon as the opted not to appeal the verdict and the sanctions, they knew they had to bring their structure below the salary cap. At a minimum, they should have all points earned with and over budget squad removed. Hence, they go back to -35 points the day they come back under £7m.
Shouldn't that be lose all points earned after the bill tops £7m?
At the moment they will be under that figure as the season is only halfway through. They only need to end the season within the cap.

I'm as baffled as anyone how they're going to manage that though. I can conceive of no method that doesn't involve a number of people foregoing (or at least agreeing to defer for a long time) what they're contractually entitled to.
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#8288
The whole farrago just shows the salary cap is way past its sell-by date 25 years after the demise of shamateurism. If a salary cap is insisted upon it must only apply to none EQP players whilst clubs, like Sarries, who provide England players should be encouraged not relegated.

It's quite unfair to expect GP clubs to compete in European games against clubs or regions who have no salary restrictions.
MikeGC and 1 others liked this
By Van Cannonball
#8292
So under this scenario how would you stop Sarries or the other richest owners from having the whole England squad by outpaying every other club for their services, and then a backup squad of non EQP players easily fitting within the cap?

It would drive up the wages of EQP even more and skew the benefits towards the richest owners again.
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#8293
Bristol (and Cheetahs) get over 20k to their games whilst other clubs get less than 6k. Yet all play under the same cap. If clubs get more revenue they should be able to spend it. Salford Saffers are kept afloat by rich men - so are Sorries.
By Van Cannonball
#8296
If those teams with bigger attendances were making a profit then I might be more inclined to agree with you, but they’re not.

Any further loosening of the cap will only lead to wage escalation, the league becoming less competitive in favour of the teams with the richest backers, and teams more likely to head towards bankruptcy as they try to compete...
By chris1850
#8306
Lord Elpus wrote:
Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:07 pm
Bristol (and Cheetahs) get over 20k to their games whilst other clubs get less than 6k. Yet all play under the same cap. If clubs get more revenue they should be able to spend it. Salford Saffers are kept afloat by rich men - so are Sorries.
Sorry, but this is absolute nonsense

The cap needs to remain and be strictly enforced regardless of crowd attendance or relative wealth of owners. It is the only way to achieve a league of 12 teams who are relatively competitive with each other
Olyy and 1 others liked this
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#8309
The cap may need to remain in some form - but not in its present form which handicaps GP sides in European competition. It needs to be focused more on non EQP imports. Fwiw I believe that reducing the GP to 10 sides would benefit the players and therefore the game itself.

The fact that relegation by performance is usually a merry-go-round between LI, Budgies , & Wuss shows that for all "the level playing field" isn't working.
MikeGC liked this
By H's D
#8353
Will Saracens be permitted to play in next season's Champions Cup if they win it this season?
Huge Implications either way.......

How will all those England players fare in retaining their England Elite Squad places if they are only playing in the 2nd Tier League? No Champions Cup.

I would worry that it would almost certainly mean a much much bigger chance of dropping out of the squad if you are currently facing stiff competition from players competing at higher levels in both League and Cup Competitions.

Itoje might be safe but most others have current viable competition for a place in the England Squad.
How much would they then lose in England appearance money, advertising revenue etc, some of which must surely be under reconsideration by the firms concerned anyway.
Well into six figure sums per player?

I expect those England players might have been willing to take cuts in pay to the end of their club contracts IF it had kept them up.
However most others within the squad would have had little short, mid or long-term financial reason to do so....I wonder if they even considered voting on such an ideas a squad in order to continue playing at the top level and if anyone did the maths in terms of percentage reduction required across the whole squad?
It was probably a non-starter.
?£2M over in a budget of ?£9M would suggest around 22% reduction. Some might say that is far too much to even consider, however.....
It was the same sort of reduction in profit and therefore remuneration some small private business owners suffered (through no fault of their own) after the banking scandal and financial crash and resultant recession a few years ago. Food for thought.
By Elgar
#8609
Van Cannonball wrote:
Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:11 am
Here’s some details from the report;

https://www.skysports.com/rugby-union/n ... p-revealed

What I don’t understand is, if all these apparent breaches were for co-investments, manipulation of image rights etc and the salaries are ok, why have they got such a problem this season in complying with the cap to they extent they’ve taken relegation??

Property co-investments involving 'interest free equity investments' (I've literally never heard of that) as a benefit in kind would carry a value (of the market rate of the interest) for every year that the player is contracted and that the interest 'holiday' persists.


Post contract years in which interest isn't charged would equate to deferred payments increasing the value of the previous contract's benefit in kind.


In determining that value it would be reasonable for PRC to 'gross up' to include the cost to the club of remunerating a player by that amount subject to tax.

The argument that the interest free elements weren't benefits in kind is very implausible. Unprovable without looking at the distribution of proceeds on disposal - which doesn't appear to have happened yet - and there is a burden on the club to show that they are compliant, not just to put PRC to proof if suggested they are not.

One suspects that HMRC may be interested in the report.
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#8633
In the end this may benefit Saracens, England , and the Lions.

Rest the flogged players for a season, blood youngsters, pay the players what they like (no salary cap in the Championship), back in the GP pay within the cap which will probably be raised significantly anyway as surely PRL don't want another embarrassing farrago.

Of course the salary details of all the GP sides should be published as well just to make sure there aren't any hypocrites amongst the other sides.
By Ulsterlad
#8642
Sarries had options to reduce the bill, they just seemed not to take them.

Player A is on £500,000 they could have offered him on loan to a club under the cap and paid half his salary - that would have saved them £250,000 and given a top player to a club who couldn't have afforded them otherwise.

They could have spread some of the bill and talent out ( while keeping the contracts) , got under the cap and honouring contracts - they chose not to. They decided to keep cheating to negate the penalty they were given! :no:
By WillC
#8662
Ulsterlad wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:49 am
Sarries had options to reduce the bill, they just seemed not to take them.

Player A is on £500,000 they could have offered him on loan to a club under the cap and paid half his salary - that would have saved them £250,000 and given a top player to a club who couldn't have afforded them otherwise.

They could have spread some of the bill and talent out ( while keeping the contracts) , got under the cap and honouring contracts - they chose not to. They decided to keep cheating to negate the penalty they were given! :no:
Not sure it's quite that simple. Your scenario assumes that there are other clubs in the Premiership with room under their own cap - 2 years ago, we would have been, but apparently not any more.

It also assumes that, if there is a club under the cap, that the club can afford to spend more, which isn't necessarily the case.

For what its worth, a much more likely scenario is player x, on £500,000 a year is offered to a rival club on loan for £250,000. Rival club, once they've stopped laughing, counters with £50,000, at which point Saracens know that they aren't going to get below the cap unless they loan out half their squad.

On the other hand, assuming that some or all of their senior players have relegation clauses, relegation gives the club more flexibility.
By ShawShark
#8831
[/quoteOn the other hand, assuming that some or all of their senior players have relegation clauses, relegation gives the club more flexibility.
[/quote]

I'm not sure I would expect many of the Saracens squad to have a relegation clause in their contract
Covid Repayments

I’m pretty sure I read from an interview s[…]

LC-D health scare

https://www.rugbypass.com/plus/luke-cowan-dickie-i[…]

Mr Critchard Keeps Us Informed

Good, solid prop. Never let us down, especially in[…]

That's a shame, Wonder where he'll go? I know hi[…]