About us
View From The 22 is a rugby forum where fans can discuss all the latest news and views regarding their club.
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.
TVM wrote: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.
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.
Shouldn't that be lose all points earned after the bill tops £7m?Penalty Try wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 8:56 amWhat 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.
Sorry, but this is absolute nonsenseLord Elpus wrote: ↑Fri Jan 17, 2020 7:07 pmBristol (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.
Van Cannonball wrote: ↑Thu Jan 23, 2020 12:11 amHere’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??
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.Ulsterlad wrote: ↑Fri Jan 24, 2020 12:49 amSarries 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!