By StalyShark
#5562
Did anyone get as annoyed as I was reading The Rugby Paper’s constant defence of Saracens? Not one voice of condemnation but constant excuses, deflections and empathy for them! That doesn’t even mention the level of the fine which is based on strict rules in the cap and not a subjective figure dreamed up out of nowhere! Worrying.
By wrinklieshark
#5566
Yes they did...from the Worcester board by Teflon Ted!

TRP clearly believes Sarries have been hard done by.

This must be the biggest news in professional rugby union since Bloodgate, but TRP chooses to headline a planned game at Twickers between The Lions and the BaaBaas at the end of next season, and limits front page comments on the Saracens judgement to a side column reporting that Barnet Councillors may be concerned as to Sarries ability to service the loan that expanded Allianz Park. Oh, poor old Saracens eh?

Inside, a double page spread by Nick Cain starts with :-
“The vitriol directed at Saracens this week by some of their rivals........”

Colin Boag’s half page spread is headlined “Saracens’ sanction is way over the top”

NickCain starts his single column comment with “Saracens pay heavy price to England”, and goes on to argue what a splendid job they’ve done to provide international players with inadequate compensation, talks us through the numbers and argues it’s all very unfair to Sarries and ends with “that is what you call being cheated of a fair level of compensation”

To round it off, Brendan Gallagher reassures us that “Cheating has always been a part of the game”, and goes on to say “The Saracens salary cap ‘scandal’.....” as though he believes it isn’t scandalous, although he goes on to say, “the system of joint/shared investment.....is not necessarily wrong per se, it’s just manifestly against current regulations and the spirit of the existing salary cap”.

Oh, well that’s all right then. If you want a balanced journalistic view of the Sarries Salary Cap judgement I’d read elsewhere.
By ale shark
#5571
Personally I don’t really care about Sarries and what they’ve done and how they pay their players, the problem I have is they will have been a large part of wage inflation which pushes other clubs beyond their means. All part of the same I guess but it’s the effect on wages throughout the league that they’ve driven.
User avatar
By Major Bloodnok
#5597
wrinklieshark wrote:
Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:05 am
[...]

NickCain starts his single column comment with “Saracens pay heavy price to England”, and goes on to argue what a splendid job they’ve done to provide international players with inadequate compensation, talks us through the numbers and argues it’s all very unfair to Sarries and ends with “that is what you call being cheated of a fair level of compensation”

[...]
Alternative take: "Saracens have hoovered up all the best players by cheating the system in order to pay over the odds".
Flumpty liked this
By H's D
#5614
I get the chicken/egg paradox but...........

shouldn't the last bit really be "... in order to completely dominate the Premiership and to be as strong as possible contenders for European Glory"?
Fundamentally the same argument as those in the GB cheating by using banned substances in international sport (because they know other top sporting countries do it).
The lack of a level playing field elsewhere excuse...
As if Premiership clubs have a god-given right to compete with those with no (financial) restraints.........
User avatar
By dinogyro
#5897
What happens to the co-investments? I wouldn't be happy if somebody suddenly took an £800,000 investment off me, only if I knew it was slightly dodgy in the first place.
User avatar
By Flumpty
#5908
SimonG wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:43 pm
But you'd be ok if you knew it would shortly appear for you somewhere else wouldn't you?
Like big Lotto winnings on a regular basis.....................but you can't remember ever buying a ticket type of thing.
Or someone buying your Mk2 Escort from you for £10000 sort of idea.
Or supporting your Mums cake making business with extra mullah (whoops, scratch that one. Its already been done and have been rumbled for it)
By SimonG
#5911
Flumpty wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 4:10 pm
SimonG wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 2:43 pm
But you'd be ok if you knew it would shortly appear for you somewhere else wouldn't you?
Like big Lotto winnings on a regular basis.....................but you can't remember ever buying a ticket type of thing.
Or someone buying your Mk2 Escort from you for £10000 sort of idea.
Or supporting your Mums cake making business with extra mullah (whoops, scratch that one. Its already been done and have been rumbled for it)
Or you suddenly discovering that the local bank account that you opened for holiday cash suddenly has ten million rand in it when you pop in to make a withdrawal the next time you are in South Africa.
Flumpty liked this
User avatar
By Yareet
#5928
SimonG wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:47 pm
Still an utter disgrace they are allowed to keep the trophies they won by cheating.
I've been thinking about this and can only conclude that the theory is that nobody can categorically say that Sarries wouldn't have won those trophies any way.

That's not to say they would have done - just that we can't be 100% sure they wouldn't.

I guess it's a view that you can't change what has happened but you can prevent it happening again.
By Elgar
#5948
The specifics of the fine and the points deduction are precisely per the salary cap rules. There is nothing in there at all about titles being stripped.

I suppose the reason for that is where should they go... They can't just go to the losing finalist. Losing semi-finalists and the clubs finishing 5th each year could make an argument, even if at a stretch, that they could have won the thing. And it would seem absurd to have 3 seasons with an official placing between 2 and 12 but no winner.
User avatar
By Yareet
#5954
Elgar wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:03 pm
And it would seem absurd to have 3 seasons with an official placing between 2 and 12 but no winner.
That's exactly what has happened in other sports cf. Armstrong's TdF wins
By FarnhamShark
#5955
I'm still baffled by the disparity between the punishment - £5M+ & 35 points is pretty draconian - and Saracens claiming that they can still keep all their current players and be within the salary cap. The penalty is surely reflecting far more than an administrative error?
By SimonG
#5966
Yareet wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:02 am
SimonG wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:47 pm
Still an utter disgrace they are allowed to keep the trophies they won by cheating.
I've been thinking about this and can only conclude that the theory is that nobody can categorically say that Sarries wouldn't have won those trophies any way.

That's not to say they would have done - just that we can't be 100% sure they wouldn't.

I guess it's a view that you can't change what has happened but you can prevent it happening again.
Well as you yourself pointed out after your above post Lance Armstrong had the trophies he won by cheating taken away so other sports seem to have more integrity.
User avatar
By Yareet
#5969
SimonG wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:03 pm
Yareet wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:02 am
SimonG wrote:
Mon Nov 18, 2019 12:47 pm
Still an utter disgrace they are allowed to keep the trophies they won by cheating.
I've been thinking about this and can only conclude that the theory is that nobody can categorically say that Sarries wouldn't have won those trophies any way.

That's not to say they would have done - just that we can't be 100% sure they wouldn't.

I guess it's a view that you can't change what has happened but you can prevent it happening again.
Well as you yourself pointed out after your above post Lance Armstrong had the trophies he won by cheating taken away so other sports seem to have more integrity.
I haven’t said it’s unheard of to strip cheats of the trophies. Just that I can see an argument for not doing.

I think the main difference is that the Sarries players still played fairly. Potentially (probably) they were rotated more than players from other clubs but they didn’t win individual game through unfair means whereas Armstrong clearly did.

It’s splitting hairs I know and I’m not entirely sure I agree but I can see the logic.

Also, I believe the cap regulations don’t have any mechanism for removing past trophies so the point is largely moot.
By Elgar
#5974
Yareet wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:32 pm
Elgar wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:03 pm
And it would seem absurd to have 3 seasons with an official placing between 2 and 12 but no winner.
That's exactly what has happened in other sports cf. Armstrong's TdF wins
Not correct.

All other competitors moved up a place (in some cases subsequently updated again as more dopers were uncovered).

That can work when the removed winner is banned for life.

Wouldn't work for Sarries. Where would they be placed? Not 12th because other teams already were relegared and subsequently promoted again.
By SimonG
#5979
Elgar wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:48 pm
Yareet wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:32 pm
Elgar wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:03 pm
And it would seem absurd to have 3 seasons with an official placing between 2 and 12 but no winner.
That's exactly what has happened in other sports cf. Armstrong's TdF wins
Not correct.

All other competitors moved up a place (in some cases subsequently updated again as more dopers were uncovered).

That can work when the removed winner is banned for life.

Wouldn't work for Sarries. Where would they be placed? Not 12th because other teams already were relegared and subsequently promoted again.
Well in rugby league Melbourne Storm were stripped of titles they won via play-off finals when they breached the salary cap so presumably the same could happen here if the regulations allowed it.
By SimonG
#5980
Yareet wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:05 pm
SimonG wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:03 pm
Yareet wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:02 am


I've been thinking about this and can only conclude that the theory is that nobody can categorically say that Sarries wouldn't have won those trophies any way.

That's not to say they would have done - just that we can't be 100% sure they wouldn't.

I guess it's a view that you can't change what has happened but you can prevent it happening again.
Well as you yourself pointed out after your above post Lance Armstrong had the trophies he won by cheating taken away so other sports seem to have more integrity.
I haven’t said it’s unheard of to strip cheats of the trophies. Just that I can see an argument for not doing.

I think the main difference is that the Sarries players still played fairly. Potentially (probably) they were rotated more than players from other clubs but they didn’t win individual game through unfair means whereas Armstrong clearly did.

It’s splitting hairs I know and I’m not entirely sure I agree but I can see the logic.

Also, I believe the cap regulations don’t have any mechanism for removing past trophies so the point is largely moot.
I agree there is an argument for not doing it but in my opinion there is a far greater argument for doing it - if the regulations allowed it of course.

As it is currently the Premiership was (and arguably still is) corrupt and therefore will forever remain tainted. Removing the titles from the record from proven cheats would allow it to regain credibility.
By ageinghoody
#5984
SimonG wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:39 pm
Yareet wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:05 pm
SimonG wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 4:03 pm


Well as you yourself pointed out after your above post Lance Armstrong had the trophies he won by cheating taken away so other sports seem to have more integrity.
I haven’t said it’s unheard of to strip cheats of the trophies. Just that I can see an argument for not doing.

I think the main difference is that the Sarries players still played fairly. Potentially (probably) they were rotated more than players from other clubs but they didn’t win individual game through unfair means whereas Armstrong clearly did.

It’s splitting hairs I know and I’m not entirely sure I agree but I can see the logic.

Also, I believe the cap regulations don’t have any mechanism for removing past trophies so the point is largely moot.
I agree there is an argument for not doing it but in my opinion there is a far greater argument for doing it - if the regulations allowed it of course.

As it is currently the Premiership was (and arguably still is) corrupt and therefore will forever remain tainted. Removing the titles from the record from proven cheats would allow it to regain credibility.
Or appear a spiteful and ultimately meaningless example of "gesture politics" that actually changes nothing.

Reportedly the panel accepted there was no intent to break the rules or deceive the authorities. Effectively they're saying it wasn't "cheating" because that requires intent to break the rules (Like Lance Armstrong knowingly intended to break cycling's rules and deceive the cycling authorities, which is where that analogy fails).

I say "reportedly" because the judgment hasn't actually been published. It seems Sarries want it made public, in full, while PRL are reluctant. Could it be that it might not prove quite so damning as others would like to believe it is?

Anyway, there's no provision in the regulations to apply a penalty other than to the current season. It would be utterly hypocritical to punish someone for breaking the rules, by breaking the rules!
By ale shark
#5989
Perhaps, as a sign of contrition, Sarries could put a little star next to the stars on their shirts to denote the ones they gained whilst cheating other clubs out of the opportunity to obtain them.

Incidentally, are there any rules about stars adorning shirts? We have one that presumably represents our Premiership win but Sarries have 3 which I’m guessing is for their European titles rather than their domestic “honours.”
User avatar
By Yareet
#5992
Elgar wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 7:48 pm
Yareet wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:32 pm
Elgar wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 1:03 pm
And it would seem absurd to have 3 seasons with an official placing between 2 and 12 but no winner.
That's exactly what has happened in other sports cf. Armstrong's TdF wins
Not correct.

All other competitors moved up a place (in some cases subsequently updated again as more dopers were uncovered).
Drifting OT but not according to https://www.letour.fr/en/history (I used 2002 as an example) or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Tour_de_France.
By ale shark
#5997
The only time someone gets bumped up in the TdF is when the drugs testers get a positive result. Armstrong, as far as I’m aware, never actually failed a drugs test in the years he “won” the TdF. Floyd Landis won the 2006 edition but he failed a drugs test so someone was awarded the win in his place. No one was awarded the win in the Armstrong years.

I assume the other Premiership clubs have come under the same scrutiny as Sarries.
By Elgar
#6000
ageinghoody wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 10:57 pm
SimonG wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 8:39 pm
Yareet wrote:
Tue Nov 19, 2019 5:05 pm

Anyway, there's no provision in the regulations to apply a penalty other than to the current season. It would be utterly hypocritical to punish someone for breaking the rules, by breaking the rules!
That, imho, must be the key point.
By ageinghoody
#6015
Why are entire posts appearing as if quotes, including the new comments?

It means I'm not entirely certain who I'm responding to. Unless it's just my device of course.

Whatever, "corrupt" implies a deliberate act of dishonesty and falsehood, for reward, by the Premiership. I think it's also a specific criminal offence, so I'm not going there in public with no evidence, much less proof. Flawed maybe, but I reckon it's cock-up, not conspiracy.

No point in rehashing the whole history back to the introduction of the cap, but, while the new rules (drafted after the previous ones were described as unenforceable the previous time this issue was headlining) have done their job in identifying and "prosecuting" an offence, it appears some deem the penalties available inadequate.

OK, that may or may not be the case and need looking at, but unless this inadequacy was deliberate in order to give the powers-that-be a future "get-out", it's not corrupt. However, an attempt to revise the penalties with the intention to impose them retrospectively looks remarkably like a corrupt conspiracy itself.
User avatar
By TeflonTed
#6020
Which raises an issue concerning the ability to edit quotes.....if one can’t edit other people’s posts, why can one edit posts in quotes?

Or am I missing summat?
User avatar
By iBozz
#6028
I've just tried to edit your post, Major, and I find that I can. However, that may be because, as a Moderator, I have the ability to edit out offensive, potentially libellous or other unacceptable comments or words. Maybe Teflon can try to edit this post - not this post =quoted, and report back?

Thinking back, the old forum allowed quote editing which was useful if you wanted to highlight just one sentence out of many.

On the other hand, I also think that quotes should be verbatim otherwise it would be possible to misrepresent something said in a discussion by changing some of the text.

A conundrum, methinks! :thinking:
User avatar
By MikeGC
#6029
TeflonTed wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:45 pm
Which raises an issue concerning the ability to edit quotes.....if one can’t edit other people’s posts, why can one edit posts in quotes?

Or am I missing summat?

No I think you are right, I can add any old nonsense in here
:)
But you cannot edit another person's message any other way (and why would you ??)
But editing your own post is easy
User avatar
By TeflonTed
#6033
MikeGC wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 9:53 am
TeflonTed wrote:
Wed Nov 20, 2019 11:45 pm
Which raises an issue concerning the ability to edit quotes.....if one can’t edit other people’s posts, why can one edit posts in quotes?

Or am I missing summat?

No I think you are right, I can add any old nonsense in here
:)
But you can give the casual reader misleading or confusing content by editing another person's message can’t you?
But editing your own post is easy
Well one would hope that all present could be trusted to not edit another’s post when quoting, but if it was done, and the reader was unaware of the edit possibility, it would be easy to give a wrong impression wouldn’t it?
User avatar
By iBozz
#6037
As I said before, you could edit Quotes on the old Unoffy and there were times when it was useful.

However, as you say, it does open up the possibility of rewriting history by changing Quotes.

To prevent this, maybe we should deny membership to any and all politicians as they are the only group of people who lie for a living (except actors on stage, but that’s their trade) and thus quote a distorted view of the past to further their own ends. Or has the current shower of political ne’er-do-wells, of all political flavours, caused a greater degree of cynicism in me than usual?

But I digress.
By DaveAitch
#6038
The ability to alter the passage being quoted is sometimes very useful. Occasionally a post will have, say, 50 lines of text but only two lines are actually pertinent to the reply. To be able to either highlight the important part or remove what is unnecessary seems to be sensible to me. I have always found the posts that quote posts that quote other posts, and, like fleas, do so almost ad infinitum to be pretty much unreadable. As with most things in life it should, by and large, be left for posters to self-police. I'm pretty sure most other posters will see if someone is doing it maliciously.
iBozz, ageinghoody liked this
By ageinghoody
#6050
DaveAitch wrote:
Thu Nov 21, 2019 12:21 pm
... Occasionally a post will have, say, 50 lines of text but only two lines are actually pertinent to the reply. ... I have always found the posts that quote posts that quote other posts, and, like fleas, do so almost ad infinitum to be pretty much unreadable. ... I'm pretty sure most other posters will see if someone is doing it maliciously.
A) Yep, that's pretty much the only reason I ever do so . B) The only other forum I participate on (not rugby) only includes what you might call "original" material when a post is quoted. I.e. If the quoted post itself contained a quote, that first quote doesn't get repeated. C) Concur! 👍

board

All what evidence points otherwise? Which other P[…]

Paul Merton another one without a mobile phone and[…]

People are not mascots.

Another lecture from the poster who is totally una[…]