bartyMJ wrote: ↑
Fri Aug 16, 2019 3:36 pm
SimonG wrote: ↑
Fri Aug 16, 2019 2:49 pm
It is also fairly common knowledge (spoken about publicly by Danny Care among others) that one of the reasons Conor O'Shea left Quins was his disgust that Saracens had been allowed to get away with a significant breach of the cap and that the PRL gave in to the legal threats and accepted the settlement fee rather than punish the club properly. He felt this meant the clubs were not operating on a level playing field.
There's the classic "its common knowledge" argument that seems to be bandied about all the time. A few people say so therefore it must be true. Complete contradiction to the PRL statement above which explicitly states "there was no breach". So it's all just he said she said. Who you choose to believe depends on where your loyalties lie in the first place. Which is why, for the good of everyone, this time round needs to be more transparent.
If there was a specific breach, we must assume PRL would have taken action. So it becomes likely (given a settlement, rather than action or dismissal) the matter of whether there was a breach is something PRL were not sure they would win if challenged in court. So they agreed there was no breach (presumably following legal advice a court would likely find the same) along with whatever agreement they came to with Sarries. It follows there was no breach - PRL (or whoever) as initial arbiter found it so.
This does not mean that rules were not gamed, but, categorically - there was no breach of the written rules found and any statement from DC, CoS of otherwise is factually wrong - no matter their personal opinion (I can't imagine either would be privvy to anything like the full facts).
DC and CoS may be entirely correct if they said Sarries breached the spirit of the rules (and none of us will ever know) - but based on the words you've used, that's not what they said (if you have sources, please link and I'll have a read). And even if they did say spirit of the rules - they would still be making conclusions and statements without full knowledge of fact.
For clarity I'm a Worcester fan. I want to see the cap enforced fairly among all. I'm not a fan of gaming the rules. There is little we can do or say about the prior Sarries agreement other than "the bag stinks, but we'll never see in or get to open it to find out why" and assume it was the best outcome PRL felt they could procure. I hate to say it, but it's best left gone.
For the current Sarries investigation - I would sincerely hope whoever is responsible would have put in a clause about the spirit of the rules after last time - that would help. And, given that they couldn't do something last time, you'd hope they'd have the bit between the teeth this time (if there is just cause) and they share the details with all clubs (I imagine we'll get breadcrumbs) - fool me once etc...