Digby wrote:
Why can't rugby players have business interests outside rugby?
They can
And they can with parties connected to their club, though it'd make any payment more likely to be considered as requiring reporting under the cap. But really unless anyone is stupid enough to veer away from normal independent commercial terms and/or admit they're guilty it's going to be bloody hard to prove guilt
On the other hand, these could all be relatively legitimate. It's not out of the question that a rugby player would want to invest their money and, while it's not entirely squeaky clean for Wray to offer his connections and expertise for free, these companies may not have any of Wray's money in them at all.
Raggs wrote:
I guess if Wray has setup companies, and made non-Sarries players directors, then there's an argument?
Trouble is why can't he make anyone he wants partner to his business providing the other party consents?
We may all take a view on the likelihood of wanting the genius of rugby players involved in a business, but there's a giant grey area between blatant media work on behalf of a club and acquiring roles independent of club affiliation
In law, he can - in rugby he can't.
If true, then it's specifically against the PRL salary cap rules.
I thought that, in law, there is a chance he cannot, at least the house part? If it is seen that the person is being underpaid for his job, the house could be considered benefit in kind and therefore taxable as such, with NI required.
And they can with parties connected to their club,
As far as I'm aware, no, they can't. Not as a legal prohibition; but as the rules of the competition
From what I’ve seen and read today, I don’t think the rules do specifically prohibit this practice. There’s a couple of paragraphs within the regulations that could apply, but it doesn’t seem clear cut to my untrained eye.
And they can with parties connected to their club,
As far as I'm aware, no, they can't. Not as a legal prohibition; but as the rules of the competition
I think only if it relates to club, if it's truly independent and is nothing more than a coincidence then they're fine, it's possible given the likely problems of appearance the salary cap manager would want to review the deal to clear it of being under the cap but that's about it
That, or it's explicitly against the salary cap regulations - which is my memory from looking into it in detail 4-5 years ago.
If a player sets up a business with their club, or anyone associated with it; then any money put into that business by the one club-side partner counts as salary to the player.
The one way I can think of (within my underdtanding) for something like this to be allowed by the cap is if Wray is setting up these businesses; and then having absolutely nothing to do with them - not putting the house into the business, not putting his expertise into it, not putting the expertise of his other empolyees into it. In which case there's no benefit to Wray; no benefit to the players from Wray, and is completely the opposite of what the Mail is saying happened.
Being paid by a club, their sponsor, their owner or their employees by "coincidence" is against the salary cap regulations.
RUGBY UNION
Saracens’ former owners feared salary cap breach
Owen Slot, Chief Rugby Correspondent
March 5 2019, 12:00am, The Times
Wray, the Saracens owner, owns businesses with leading players including Farrell and the Vunipola brothers
The South African former co-owners of Saracens sold their 50 per cent shareholding in spring last year in part because they were uncomfortable about whether the leading club in England were obeying the Premiership salary cap rules.
Saracens’ adherence to the salary cap was being investigated yesterday after a newspaper exposé that found that Nigel Wray, who is now the club’s sole owner, had entered into business partnerships with some of the club’s leading England players, including Owen Farrell and the Vunipola brothers.
Premiership Rugby said yesterday that it would “look closely” at these business partnerships with Wray, the 70-year-old property investor whose personal wealth is estimated at about £315 million, to ensure that there had been no breach of their salary cap rules.
Saracens said that all the details of the business partnerships that were in the Daily Mail yesterday had already been declared to the Premiership salary manager.
The South Africans, who owned half of the club, were concerned about the club and whether it was breaching the cap. They made it clear that if the club were not under the cap, and within the spirit of the cap, then they would leave.
When they did sell last year, after nine years of ownership, Johann Rupert, the businessman rated by Forbes as the fifth-wealthiest man in Africa with a net worth of $5.3 billion (about £4 billion), walked away, writing off debts of about £25 million.
Rupert is mainly based in South Africa but he was represented by his daughter, Caroline, who was a board member and asked in a board meeting for reassurance that the club were complying with the Premiership salary cap rules. She was given assurance that the club were inside the cap. She asked for the conversation to be minuted.
However, in 2015, Saracens and Bath were found guilty of breaching the rules of the cap. On that occasion, the Ruperts and their company, Remgro, elected to stay with the club. Last spring, they finally sold their stake.
The Times understands that the South Africans always asked for an unequivocal answer as to whether they were within cap. When they asked questions, they were told that the cap rules were open to interpretation.
Documents at Companies House reveal that Wray, Billy Vunipola and Mako Vunipola are shareholders in the property investment company VunProp Ltd, while Farrell and Wray are joint shareholders in a financial management firm, Faz Investments Ltd. Wray has a similar partnership with Saracens’ former England scrum half Richard Wigglesworth in a company called Wiggy9 Investments Ltd.
Under Premiership Rugby salary cap rules, all arrangements and contracts between players and club officials must be declared to the league’s salary cap manager Andrew Rogers.
A Premiership Rugby statement yesterday said that it took the salary cap framework “very seriously” and would be considering this information on Saracens “in detail”. It said: “Premiership Rugby has a duty to all clubs to deliver the system in a transparent, objective and non-discriminatory manner. Any decision on follow-up action would be taken with the assistance of independent bodies in accordance with the regulations.”
Saracens responded in a statement last night that said: “Firstly, we would like to reiterate that the club readily complies with Premiership Rugby salary regulations and information relating to remuneration is declared to the salary cap manager.
“Although co-investment partnerships between owners and players are not a prerequisite of the salary regulations, we disclose these transactions to Premiership Rugby and will continue to do so.”
The statement also emphasised that the salary cap rules gave clubs dispensation to spend beyond the £7 million according to how many home-grown players that they developed. The present squad, it said, contained 57 per cent home-grown players, which allowed the club to spend £1.2 million beyond the £7 million.
The arrival of the South Africans at Saracens nine seasons ago triggered the most successful period in the club’s history. The success only became a habit when a golden crop of home-grown players, including Farrell, Jamie George and George Kruis, came through their academy.
As the Farrell generation came through, their salaries grew from the comparatively small contracts that they were on in the academy to deals in the region of £500,000 a year.
This has taken them beyond the £7 million mark. Many fans of rival clubs believe that they must have broken the rules. Last month, when Saracens signed Elliot Daly, the Wasps player, to join next season on another high salary, some rival owners were exasperated.
Last edited by Mellsblue on Tue Mar 05, 2019 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Find out if Saracens are guilty — then declare all salaries
owen slot
Are Saracens breaking the salary cap or not? Straight question. It is fair to say that fans of 11 other clubs in the Gallagher Premiership are desperate for the answer to be yes. Many have long believed the answer to be yes. You do not have to go far to find members of management at the rival clubs who are adamant that the answer is yes, too.
Why do so many believe that they are cheating? That bit is simple. They stockpile leading international players. They have more England players than any other club. These are all, by definition, high earners and they all have to be squeezed under the salary cap, don’t they?
Last season Sale Sharks tried to sign the Farrells, Owen and his father Andy, who is an Ireland coach. Sale wanted to bring a northern identity back to the North West. They flew to Dublin to see Andy. No joy. They were offering big money but Owen wasn’t moving either.
Hardly anyone ever leaves Saracens. That is another aspect that courts suspicion. Players arrive and stay. You may say that is because they like it so much. Many today will have read about the private companies that Nigel Wray, the owner, has set up in partnership with some of his players and come to a different conclusion: why do you stay at Saracens? Well, because you may get a share in a house in Harpenden.
Why did it take a newspaper exposé to tell us about these business partnerships? Another interesting Saracens thing. When players arrive at the club, the deal is done by their agent. Saracens then routinely persuade the player to ditch the agent. A lot of senior players therefore have a commercial agent but negotiate their second contracts directly.
This cuts out any knowledge of these business partnerships. You may find that suspicious. Alternatively, you could conclude that by cutting out the agent’s fee, it becomes a better deal for player and club. And that is clever, isn’t it?
So much of what Saracens do is about making the environment a happy one for the players. Jamie George, for instance, is unlikely to leave because his brother and his father are on the payroll. His brother is a physiotherapist, his father works with the academy. And no, there is nothing wrong there, not if you declare it.
So are they cheating? It’s probably best just to do the sums.
I spent much of yesterday working out the value of the squad. I put every player into a pay bracket. Some will be at the top of their bracket, some at the bottom; these should all average out. I then discussed my figures with some agents — the people who know the price of a player — and adjusted accordingly. Those conversations reminded me of one of the facts of life at Saracens: that players there are not well paid comparatively.
Why are the wages not above the norm? Because, first, at Saracens you may win trophies. Conversely, when a high-profile player such as Ben Te’o goes to a club such as Worcester Warriors, where he is unlikely to win anything more than a fight against relegation, they have to pay above the norm to get him there. And second, at Saracens you are well coached in a high-performance environment and generally on a winning side. This boosts your chances of playing international rugby. And then it all works nicely because when you are playing international rugby, you get paid for it.
But back to my maths. I accounted for 43 players. I put 12 on the lowest wage of £60,000 and another 12 in the £100,000-£200,000 bracket, averaging their wages at £150,000. I put another eight at £250,000 and six at £350,000. Maro Itoje, who earns about £350,000 at present, will make more than £500,000 when his new contract begins next season. I only had four in the £400,000-£500,000 bracket: the two Vunipolas, Jamie George and Liam Williams. Farrell was top of the tree at £750,000.
In all, I had the Saracens squad salaries totalling £9,170,000. Yes, the cap is set at £7 million. Yes, that means that Saracens are more than £2 million above it.
However, you then have to count backwards. Each club is allowed two marquee players to sit outside the cap, so take out Farrell and Williams and you have saved £1.2 million.
Then you have to factor in the credits that clubs get for developing their own players. Clubs are rewarded both for having players who have come through their academies, and for having players who play international rugby. Each player’s success in these aspects allows the club to spend a bit more.
Saracens trumpeted all this in its response to yesterday’s exposé in the Daily Mail. In their statement last night, they said: “Currently, 57 per cent of the men’s squad is comprised of home-grown talent — the highest in the Premiership. These players not only produce results on the pitch, they help entitle the club to £1.2 million in credits.”
If you do the maths now, you get a very different picture. With the marquee-player exemptions and the credits, Saracens are under the cap, not over it.
Is that case closed then? Not so quick. We have to return to these business partnerships.
Is there any reason why Wray and Farrell should not go into a joint business venture together? None at all. They are recorded as being 50 per cent shareholders in a company ingeniously named Faz Investments Ltd.
Do we really think this is a hidden company? For one, Saracens say that is has been declared to the Premiership. Furthermore, I don’t believe that it is beyond the wit of PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accountancy firm that audits Premiership salaries, to locate a company named Faz Investments. Or indeed Wiggy9 Investments, the company Wray shares with Richard Wigglesworth, or indeed VunProp Ltd, his joint company with the Vunipola brothers. These names do not sound like subterfuge.
If Farrell has indeed put in 50 per cent of the money into Faz Investments, then all is well. However, if Wray has put in more than half and given half to Farrell, then, at that point, it is not. If Wray is putting in the money and handing over the shareholding, then these are payments that stand against the salary cap.
It is time for some clarity. When Premiership Rugby has finished studying this strange assembly of Saracens businesses, it should make a declaration either way. Fair or not. Guilty or not. Then next year, it should demand complete transparency of everyone’s Premiership salaries. As they do in American sports. Bring everything out into the open at last.
The Premiership has been guilty of identifying salary cap breaches and letting clubs go with little more than a smack on the wrist. It should not require the media to expose what has been swept under the Premiership’s carpet.
Why do fans suspect that Saracens are cheating? Because they were found guilty of breaking the cap in 2015 and almost nothing happened. Why do so many club coaches feel so bitter about Saracens’ success? Because they believe it is happening again.
This is either a tawdry tale of dodgy accounting that is cheating the rest of the league. Or it is a club whose standards and excellence have been eclipsed by suspicion and are woefully under-appreciated because of it.
From the Mail article, it sounded like Wray set up the companies and gave them investment, then handed over complete shareholding to another partner, who then handed over ownership to the Saracens player. Which meant the company did not directly change hands between a Sarries employee and employer. BUT, it is so far against the spirit of the regulations, something needs to be done against it.
Find out if Saracens are guilty — then declare all salaries
owen slot
Are Saracens breaking the salary cap or not? Straight question. It is fair to say that fans of 11 other clubs in the Gallagher Premiership are desperate for the answer to be yes. Many have long believed the answer to be yes. You do not have to go far to find members of management at the rival clubs who are adamant that the answer is yes, too.
Why do so many believe that they are cheating? That bit is simple. They stockpile leading international players. They have more England players than any other club. These are all, by definition, high earners and they all have to be squeezed under the salary cap, don’t they?
Last season Sale Sharks tried to sign the Farrells, Owen and his father Andy, who is an Ireland coach. Sale wanted to bring a northern identity back to the North West. They flew to Dublin to see Andy. No joy. They were offering big money but Owen wasn’t moving either.
Hardly anyone ever leaves Saracens. That is another aspect that courts suspicion. Players arrive and stay. You may say that is because they like it so much. Many today will have read about the private companies that Nigel Wray, the owner, has set up in partnership with some of his players and come to a different conclusion: why do you stay at Saracens? Well, because you may get a share in a house in Harpenden.
Why did it take a newspaper exposé to tell us about these business partnerships? Another interesting Saracens thing. When players arrive at the club, the deal is done by their agent. Saracens then routinely persuade the player to ditch the agent. A lot of senior players therefore have a commercial agent but negotiate their second contracts directly.
This cuts out any knowledge of these business partnerships. You may find that suspicious. Alternatively, you could conclude that by cutting out the agent’s fee, it becomes a better deal for player and club. And that is clever, isn’t it?
So much of what Saracens do is about making the environment a happy one for the players. Jamie George, for instance, is unlikely to leave because his brother and his father are on the payroll. His brother is a physiotherapist, his father works with the academy. And no, there is nothing wrong there, not if you declare it.
So are they cheating? It’s probably best just to do the sums.
I spent much of yesterday working out the value of the squad. I put every player into a pay bracket. Some will be at the top of their bracket, some at the bottom; these should all average out. I then discussed my figures with some agents — the people who know the price of a player — and adjusted accordingly. Those conversations reminded me of one of the facts of life at Saracens: that players there are not well paid comparatively.
Why are the wages not above the norm? Because, first, at Saracens you may win trophies. Conversely, when a high-profile player such as Ben Te’o goes to a club such as Worcester Warriors, where he is unlikely to win anything more than a fight against relegation, they have to pay above the norm to get him there. And second, at Saracens you are well coached in a high-performance environment and generally on a winning side. This boosts your chances of playing international rugby. And then it all works nicely because when you are playing international rugby, you get paid for it.
But back to my maths. I accounted for 43 players. I put 12 on the lowest wage of £60,000 and another 12 in the £100,000-£200,000 bracket, averaging their wages at £150,000. I put another eight at £250,000 and six at £350,000. Maro Itoje, who earns about £350,000 at present, will make more than £500,000 when his new contract begins next season. I only had four in the £400,000-£500,000 bracket: the two Vunipolas, Jamie George and Liam Williams. Farrell was top of the tree at £750,000.
In all, I had the Saracens squad salaries totalling £9,170,000. Yes, the cap is set at £7 million. Yes, that means that Saracens are more than £2 million above it.
However, you then have to count backwards. Each club is allowed two marquee players to sit outside the cap, so take out Farrell and Williams and you have saved £1.2 million.
Then you have to factor in the credits that clubs get for developing their own players. Clubs are rewarded both for having players who have come through their academies, and for having players who play international rugby. Each player’s success in these aspects allows the club to spend a bit more.
Saracens trumpeted all this in its response to yesterday’s exposé in the Daily Mail. In their statement last night, they said: “Currently, 57 per cent of the men’s squad is comprised of home-grown talent — the highest in the Premiership. These players not only produce results on the pitch, they help entitle the club to £1.2 million in credits.”
If you do the maths now, you get a very different picture. With the marquee-player exemptions and the credits, Saracens are under the cap, not over it.
Is that case closed then? Not so quick. We have to return to these business partnerships.
Is there any reason why Wray and Farrell should not go into a joint business venture together? None at all. They are recorded as being 50 per cent shareholders in a company ingeniously named Faz Investments Ltd.
Do we really think this is a hidden company? For one, Saracens say that is has been declared to the Premiership. Furthermore, I don’t believe that it is beyond the wit of PricewaterhouseCoopers, the accountancy firm that audits Premiership salaries, to locate a company named Faz Investments. Or indeed Wiggy9 Investments, the company Wray shares with Richard Wigglesworth, or indeed VunProp Ltd, his joint company with the Vunipola brothers. These names do not sound like subterfuge.
If Farrell has indeed put in 50 per cent of the money into Faz Investments, then all is well. However, if Wray has put in more than half and given half to Farrell, then, at that point, it is not. If Wray is putting in the money and handing over the shareholding, then these are payments that stand against the salary cap.
It is time for some clarity. When Premiership Rugby has finished studying this strange assembly of Saracens businesses, it should make a declaration either way. Fair or not. Guilty or not. Then next year, it should demand complete transparency of everyone’s Premiership salaries. As they do in American sports. Bring everything out into the open at last.
The Premiership has been guilty of identifying salary cap breaches and letting clubs go with little more than a smack on the wrist. It should not require the media to expose what has been swept under the Premiership’s carpet.
Why do fans suspect that Saracens are cheating? Because they were found guilty of breaking the cap in 2015 and almost nothing happened. Why do so many club coaches feel so bitter about Saracens’ success? Because they believe it is happening again.
This is either a tawdry tale of dodgy accounting that is cheating the rest of the league. Or it is a club whose standards and excellence have been eclipsed by suspicion and are woefully under-appreciated because of it.
A lot of "ifs" in there but a fairly balanced article.
Get the salary cap manager, PWC and someone from Sarries in a room and go through all the salaries, family members employed and business relationships then determine yay or nay.
Some of those things above should be easily traceable.
Not keen on stating players salaries. Perhaps stating the number of players per band would do?
The Tines, Owen Slot, now reporting that the SA co-owners pulled out as they were not happy that Sarries were complying with the letter and spirit of the salary cap. Not happy to the extent of writing off £25m....
Seems to be a fair amount of smoke gathering around Sarries....
Which Tyler wrote:That, or it's explicitly against the salary cap regulations - which is my memory from looking into it in detail 4-5 years ago.
If a player sets up a business with their club, or anyone associated with it; then any money put into that business by the one club-side partner counts as salary to the player.
The one way I can think of (within my underdtanding) for something like this to be allowed by the cap is if Wray is setting up these businesses; and then having absolutely nothing to do with them - not putting the house into the business, not putting his expertise into it, not putting the expertise of his other empolyees into it. In which case there's no benefit to Wray; no benefit to the players from Wray, and is completely the opposite of what the Mail is saying happened.
Being paid by a club, their sponsor, their owner or their employees by "coincidence" is against the salary cap regulations.
If there was something about this a few seasons back I don't think it's there now, albeit only because we're having to swallow the pretence these companies don't simply represent additional salaries - unless player or club offer to be honest
What can you do? Have the RFU strip the captaincy from Farrell for doing something every other player in the EPS would do on the basis Farrell doesn't represent values of honesty and integrity?
jimKRFC wrote:The Tines, Owen Slot, now reporting that the SA co-owners pulled out as they were not happy that Sarries were complying with the letter and spirit of the salary cap. Not happy to the extent of writing off £25m....
Seems to be a fair amount of smoke gathering around Sarries....
Piffle, they were perfectly happy doing very similar with Jon Smit, that story reads more like Rupert looking to put a veneer on pulling out that sounds better than I'm fed up with being involved
Which Tyler wrote:That, or it's explicitly against the salary cap regulations - which is my memory from looking into it in detail 4-5 years ago.
If a player sets up a business with their club, or anyone associated with it; then any money put into that business by the one club-side partner counts as salary to the player.
The one way I can think of (within my underdtanding) for something like this to be allowed by the cap is if Wray is setting up these businesses; and then having absolutely nothing to do with them - not putting the house into the business, not putting his expertise into it, not putting the expertise of his other empolyees into it. In which case there's no benefit to Wray; no benefit to the players from Wray, and is completely the opposite of what the Mail is saying happened.
Being paid by a club, their sponsor, their owner or their employees by "coincidence" is against the salary cap regulations.
If there was something about this a few seasons back I don't think it's there now, albeit only because we're having to swallow the pretence these companies don't simply represent additional salaries - unless player or club offer to be honest
What can you do? Have the RFU strip the captaincy from Farrell for doing something every other player in the EPS would do on the basis Farrell doesn't represent values of honesty and integrity?
I couldn't care less about the players. Their responsibility is to themselves and to gather as much money as possible. It's the club who need to abide by the rules.
Just because you like/dislike a certain player doesn't mean anything here, it's about Saracens and their consistent flouting of the cap. If we want to have a salary cap, we need to enforce it and ensure that it actually leads to a level playing field.
Just look at the difference in squads between Saracens and Quins, and Quins are on the cap.
Marler - Mako
Boyce - Barrington
Auterac - Thompson-Stringer
Lambert - ---
Ward - George
Buchanan - Tolofua
Crumpton - Gray
Elia - Woolstencroft
--- - Spurling
Sinckler - Figallo
Collier - Koch
Swainston - Lamositele
McNulty - Walker
Horwill - Itoje
Symons - Kruis
Merrick - Skelton
Glynn - Isiekwe
South - Day
Robshaw - Burger
Bothma - Rhodes
Chisholm - Clark
Wallace - Earl
Clifford - BillyV
Dombrandt - Wray
Luamanu - ---
Care - Wigglesworth
Mulchrone - Spencer
Lewis - Taylor
Smith - Farrell
Lang - Lozowski
Catrakilis - Malins
Tapuai - Barritt
Saili - Bosch
Marchant - Taylor
Lasike - Hakalo
Cheeseman - Tompkins
Visser - Maitland
Walker - Lewington
Earle - Strettle
Alofa - Williams
Chisholm - Segun
Brown - Goode
Morris - Gallagher
I think if you compare those two lists - with special attention to the more expensive positions of THP, lock, 10, one side seems to be spending a lot more than the other...yet Quins are spending right to the cap (and a few thousand over).
jimKRFC wrote:The Tines, Owen Slot, now reporting that the SA co-owners pulled out as they were not happy that Sarries were complying with the letter and spirit of the salary cap. Not happy to the extent of writing off £25m....
Seems to be a fair amount of smoke gathering around Sarries....
Piffle, they were perfectly happy doing very similar with Jon Smit, that story reads more like Rupert looking to put a veneer on pulling out that sounds better than I'm fed up with being involved
Yep. Smells of them getting their excuses in first.
Stom wrote:
Just look at the difference in squads between Saracens and Quins, and Quins are on the cap.
I don't start with an assumption other teams are not also flouting the rules, indeed I strongly suspect anyone who can spend up to the cap is spending over it
Digby wrote:If there was something about this a few seasons back I don't think it's there now, albeit only because we're having to swallow the pretence these companies don't simply represent additional salaries - unless player or club offer to be honest
What can you do? Have the RFU strip the captaincy from Farrell for doing something every other player in the EPS would do on the basis Farrell doesn't represent values of honesty and integrity?
I simply don't believe that the cap regulations became more lax over time.
As for what you can do - it's all laid out in the cap regulations; and it's nothing to do with the player or the RFU.
The cap is a PRL regulation, and adherence is necessary for any club who wished to play in the prem. Sanctions range from fines, through league points penalties to expulsion from PRL and the premiership.
If I had to commit to a "most plausible" theory, then I'd suggest that Sarries a least, are convinced that what there doing is allowed. Which means that they've either run these companies through a few iterations to remove Wray's direct involvement, and think they've cleaned it that way. Or they've been scrupulous in keeping player and owner involvement perfectly equal (bare in mind they claim that PRL knew). My suspicion would be the latter, but with o lh the player drawing aything down, or at least, living in a nice house rent-free (with technical ownership), with the real financial incentives coming later - after retiring, and away from cap investigations.
eggs Player A and Wray both put up half the cost of a really nice house. Player A gets to stay there with a peppercorn rent to appease PRL.
8 years later, Player A retires, Wray hands over the rest of the property rights, and Player A now has 100% ownership of a very nice house which will have increased in value. This would probably be okay in the cap as the rewards come post-retirement. However, I Wray outs in more than his share, and quite possibly if he simply doesn't take money out, or even if the peppercorn rent is too generous, then that would probably breach the cap.
Digby wrote:If there was something about this a few seasons back I don't think it's there now, albeit only because we're having to swallow the pretence these companies don't simply represent additional salaries - unless player or club offer to be honest
What can you do? Have the RFU strip the captaincy from Farrell for doing something every other player in the EPS would do on the basis Farrell doesn't represent values of honesty and integrity?
I simply don't believe that the cap regulations became more lax over time.
As for what you can do - it's all laid out in the cap regulations; and it's nothing to do with the player or the RFU.
The cap is a PRL regulation, and adherence is necessary for any club who wished to play in the prem. Sanctions range from fines, through league points penalties to expulsion from PRL and the premiership.
I know it's PRL rather than the RFU, but if the England captain is complicit in cheating the major English tournament the RFU is going to need a bigger carpet to sweep the report under to avoid taking action around the supposed values of rugby
That said I don't remember which bit of the salary cap regs makes this a problem if people don't abandon their pretence it's a series of business dealings utterly unconnected to the players being employed at a rugby club
