By Van Cannonball
#18177
Except if Saracens weren’t already relegated Leicester wouldn’t be using these games as pre-season to bed in new signings and youth players.

George Ford has played half the games at most.

They might still have been the worst team, but there’s no way of saying for sure.
SimonG liked this
User avatar
By Yareet
#18183
Flumpty wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:50 pm
Tigers have plunged to new levels of mediocrity and shiteness this season.

Tonight, it was like watching men vs boys.
Mainly because it was men vs boys. The player profile shots on the Prem Rugby website are almost all blank for the whole Tigers pack bar Wallace, half their back line and half their bench.
By DaveAitch
#18191
Van Cannonball wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:43 pm
Except if Saracens weren’t already relegated Leicester wouldn’t be using these games as pre-season to bed in new signings and youth players.
That equally applies to all the teams in recent weeks. The league table says they were the wordt team and normally that's all that counts
By Van Cannonball
#18199
Sorry but that’s just complete nonsense.

You can’t derive anything about the bottom of the league from the point Sarries were confirmed as relegated.

It’s a completely different situation from other seasons.
By Van Cannonball
#18205
Again that’s not the point. Clearly they’ve been rubbish and likely would be down the bottom end of the table, but you can’t say with any certainty that they’d have finished bottom.
By DaveAitch
#18215
Van Cannonball, of course. Anyway, I'm off to read your exciting post as to who you have selected for the next game. Mind you, it has no bearing on who Dimes actually selects, so I suppose that makes your selection hypothetical
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#18224
It should be a principle that the worst performing side is relegated. Sorries aren't that but have been punished for being found to have broken the salary cap rules. Fwiw I would have fined them the amount of the excess salaries. The double penalty was obviously to ensure they were relegated this season and possibly to deter others - or rather ensure others are better at creative accounting like Sale were.

What is happening now is that sides, including us, are getting cheap and easy bp wins in, what are to the Cheetahs, meaningless games. Whereas the games between the top 6 rivals are very fierce as we saw on Tuesday with 3 serious injuries and probably a few more knocks to already tired bodies.
By chris1850
#18225
Lord Elpus wrote:
Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:44 am
It should be a principle that the worst performing side is relegated. Sorries aren't that but have been punished for being found to have broken the salary cap rules. Fwiw I would have fined them the amount of the excess salaries. The double penalty was obviously to ensure they were relegated this season and possibly to deter others - or rather ensure others are better at creative accounting like Sale were.

What is happening now is that sides, including us, are getting cheap and easy bp wins in, what are to the Cheetahs, meaningless games. Whereas the games between the top 6 rivals are very fierce as we saw on Tuesday with 3 serious injuries and probably a few more knocks to already tired bodies.
What are you talking about?
Olyy liked this
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#18226
In the EP days there was , I am led to believe by those "in the know", some ..er.. adjustment of the accounting calendar by the then FD. In the end some apprentices weren't paid and had to go to BK and ask him for a sub. The FD resigned shortly afterwards.

That's what I was told and events bore this out.
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#18229
At least one posts on here. Others were prominent members of SSSC of which I was then a member. As usual in RU unseemly things get brushed under the carpet and smoothed over. Obviously at least one club was upset at our success and pointed darkly at our spend - like Dimes used to do to Sorries.
Last edited by Lord Elpus on Thu Oct 01, 2020 10:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
By Elgar
#18230
Lord Elpus wrote:
Thu Oct 01, 2020 8:44 am
... Fwiw I would have fined them the amount of the excess salaries. The double penalty was obviously to ensure they were relegated this season and possibly to deter others - or rather ensure others are better at creative accounting like Sale were...
But this gets to the exact issue.

They wouldn't present credible books or allow a proper independent audit to enable exactly that decision (the amount of excess salaries) to be made. The additional points deduction that effectively relegated them was the penalty for exactly this; not just a double jeopardy for the original breach of the cap by amounts not possible to confirm.

If Sarries had gone along with the further investigations then they'd be playing Premiership rugby next season.
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#18234
I agree it was foolish not to co-operate leaving retribution inevitable. However I do think that Exeter and others would still have insisted on relegation.
By DaveAitch
#18238
Elgar wrote:
Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:24 am
If Sarries had gone along with the further investigations then they'd be playing Premiership rugby next season.
I do find it amazing that at one point in the thread someone can, if you will, mock an hypothetical assertion and then go on to make one himself. People are wonderful in their consistency.
By chris1850
#18243
Lord Elpus wrote:
Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:19 am
At least one posts on here. Others were prominent members of SSSC of which I was then a member. As usual in RU unseemly things get brushed under the carpet and smoothed over. Obviously at least one club was upset at our success and pointed darkly at our spend - like Dimes used to do to Sorries.
So we have a poster on this board who "knows" that we transgressed in 2010. Who is that? How does he/she "know"? Similarly, "prominent members of the supporters club know" that we transgressed. Who are they? How do they "know"? Finally, A.N.Other club "pointed darkly" at our spend.

Without names and evidence it is hardly going to stand up in court is it?!
By Elgar
#18245
DaveAitch wrote:
Thu Oct 01, 2020 10:41 am
Elgar wrote:
Thu Oct 01, 2020 9:24 am
If Sarries had gone along with the further investigations then they'd be playing Premiership rugby next season.
I do find it amazing that at one point in the thread someone can, if you will, mock an hypothetical assertion and then go on to make one himself. People are wonderful in their consistency.
If anyone feels unduly mocked then I of course apologise.

I'm not sure that what you've highlighted is purely speculative when read with the following. Particularly Annex 3's points 4(ii), 6 and 7(i): https://media-cdn.incrowdsports.com/fa0 ... a67de6.pdf

Nevertheless fair to say that it could have been more accurate of me to have said "could be playing..." rather than to use the abbreviated version of 'would be'.
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#18246
That's because it isn't in court. It's gossip, scuttlebutt, "word to the wise" whatever you wish to call it. However the people who gave the info. were extremely well connected back then.
By chris1850
#18250
Lord Elpus wrote:
Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:10 am
That's because it isn't in court. It's gossip, scuttlebutt, "word to the wise" whatever you wish to call it. However the people who gave the info. were extremely well connected back then.
Unsubstantiated and unfounded rumour? Of which plenty abound about numerous topics all the time.
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#18251
Not at all. That's a disgraceful slur on those who worked hard to establish the SSSC and , to an extent, enjoyed access to the club management.
By chris1850
#18253
Lord Elpus wrote:
Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:33 am
Not at all. That's a disgraceful slur on those who worked hard to establish the SSSC and , to an extent, enjoyed access to the club management.
Dont be ridiculous! There is no intention to slur anyone at SSSC. It is you who has made the allegation that the Club employed "creative accounting". You allege that certain un-named members of the supporters club were "in the know", though you are unable or unwilling to say who these people are, what they knew or how they knew it. Are you one of them? What do you know? How do you know? Where is your evidence?

I suspect that you "know" nothing concrete and certainly no allegations were substantiated at the time. Therefore, it is unfounded and unsubstantiated rumour. How else would you describe it?
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#18254
I know what I was told by members of the SSSC at the time of the resignation of the FD . They considered themselves "in the know" and I have absolutely no reason to doubt them.

You may wish to believe otherwise.
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#18260
chris1850 wrote:
Thu Oct 01, 2020 12:14 pm
Without evidence I usually find it sensible to maintain an open mind
So if someone high up in the SSSC gave you an explanation of a surprising event at the club you would disbelieve them then.
User avatar
By iBozz
#18265
<MOD> Ladies and Gentlemen, please.

We are all, to a greater or lesser extent, suffering from Cabin Fever but let's not start slinging gratuitous insults at each other.

Keep it friendly, please, and don't let things escalate out of control. </MOD>
By chris1850
#18271
IBozz

Apologies that you felt the need to post. For my part, and I am sure from Lord Elpus' part as well, there were no gratuitous insults meant or taken during the course of our "debate". We have both made our points, I think, and I am content to accept that we disagree and there is nothing to be gained in posting further on the subject.

Lord Elpus - I accept your viewpoint, as I hope you do mine. I enjoyed our brief "debate" and whilst we may disagree, we are both Sale supporters who want the Club to succeed, which is the main thing. Like the username btw!
User avatar
By poyntonshark
#18275
At the risk of poking the hornets' nest again. I'm not sure this was entirely unsubstantiated, although it was a long time ago I have a vague recollection of some form of warning issued. I was involved on that original SSSC committee, although I was never 'in the know' about very much at all really, there were some who were. They were not gossip mongers. The poster on this forum is likely to remember events more clearly than I, they may wish to elaborate.
User avatar
By iBozz
#18284
chris1850 wrote:
Thu Oct 01, 2020 1:08 pm
IBozz

Apologies that you felt the need to post. For my part, and I am sure from Lord Elpus' part as well, there were no gratuitous insults meant or taken during the course of our "debate". We have both made our points, I think, and I am content to accept that we disagree and there is nothing to be gained in posting further on the subject.

Lord Elpus - I accept your viewpoint, as I hope you do mine. I enjoyed our brief "debate" and whilst we may disagree, we are both Sale supporters who want the Club to succeed, which is the main thing. Like the username btw!

It's not a problem, Chris, and wasn't meant as a rebuke or reprimand. I just didn't want things to spiral out of control - we saw how easily that could happen on our old Board. This Board is infinitely more friendly, and all the better for it, and it was meant merely as a gentle nudge of the tiller rather than a shot across the bows.

Or somesuch.

Keep calm and carry on. (I wonder why no-one has ever used that expression before, maybe I spot a marketing opportunity!).
By H's D
#18417
Chris 1850, you should not doubt Lord Elpus's tale. I recently had the same story re-related to me by an ex-employee of Sale Sharks as gospel truth. Both elements are basically true, although the version I heard was a single player being unpaid, with the said FD declining to take action on the Friday leaving the player in a significant embarassing financial hole over the week-end. It was sorted immediately by BK/IB. The said Director was keen to apologise a few days later to BK/IB, who immediately introduced him to his replacement. A lovely anecdote that rings true, given the character of one of those said to be involved. Player financial welfare is top priority.

Sale's 'accidental' exceeding of the salary cap of around the samish period was, I think, because up to that point clubs had been allowed to pay players agent's fees directly (out-with the salary cap) The then Financial Director missed the announcement , or rather email, by PRL that this was no longer to be permitted, as did a couple of other clubs. ALL 3 clubs got their knuckles rapped and suspended penalties when that resulted in them going over the cap . Although it did get into at least one report in the papers, it was all quickly swept under the carpet. Both events around a decade ago AFAISTR in the days immediately preceding the Salary Cap Czar...I posted the article on the old discussion board and have retrieved it two or three times over the years when this subject has come up. You may be able to find it, if you look long enough. I orginally thought the breech was down to third party payments for image rights, but was corrected and enlightened by our CEO whilst in Ireland (who was very chatty, shortly before he moved elsewhere: to the Olympics I think).
iBozz liked this
User avatar
By Lord Elpus
#18756
Borthwick may be a better coach than he was a player which quite often happens.

I wonder why Jonno doesn't seem interested in the post.
Covid Repayments

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

Never ending word association thread

Dune https://media.tacdn.com/media/attractions-sp[…]

24/03/24 Bath 42 Sale 24 [GP]

Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once&mdas[…]

"how you are going to transform little Sale[…]