Salary Cap Consultation

[Which Tyler]

So Lord Myners' review of the cap, and suggestions going forward, has a consultation element, for input from whoever wants to.
Open for 3 weeks, starting today.

https://www.mynersreview.co.uk/

[Which Tyler]

Gone through it now - the points I made were:

PRL should have the right to force a forensic audit in the event of a significant breach (or reason for suspicion for active cheating) - not have to enter what's essentially a plea bargain, whereby Sarries opted to take relegation instead. Noncompliance results in expulsion from PRL and the league structure - apply to RFU for permission to rejoin at the bottom.

Independent investigators (such as Lord Dyson) should have the right to demand players' tax returns (I don't know if this would form part of a "normal" forensic audit).

All monies from club (or connected party) to player (or connected party) to be considered as salary unless explicitly exempted in the regulations (so ANYTHING new or dodgy is considered within the cap until discussed; no leeway for creativity). Devil's in the detail for definition of "connected party".

Given the stepped arrangements for fines (£0.50 per £1; £1 per £1; £3 per £1) the steps should not stop at £350k - I suggested £5 per £1 for >£350k; £10 per £1 for >£1M.

There should be no upper limit for points deductions (currently 5 points per £50k over £350 (starting at 5 points); but maximum of 35 points); just keep on going at 5 points per £50k. Currently a £650k breach gets the same deduction as a £2M breach!

Breaches over multiple years should result on sanctions (well points deductions) over multiple years (neither combined nor concurrent for 1 year).

Breaches under the current £350k limit are dealt with the same way as currently - but with a statement saying that a club has transgressed; but not (necessarily) by how much.



To take the Saracens example (breaches of £1,100k; £98k and £906k)
2016-17 would have resulted in a fine of (25k+100k+600k+3250k+1000k) £4,975k and a points deduction of 80 points
2017-18 would have resulted in a fine of (25k+48k) £73k
2018-19 would have resulted in a fine of (25k+100k+600k+2780k) £3,505k and a points deduction of 60 points

Fines all payable now, first (80) points deducted this year; second (60) points deduction next year (at whatever level they're playing) all to have been applied as of November 2019.
Current season's breach to be calculated at the end of the season when it's known how large the breach.

Further punishment for not opening up the books mid-season as was part of the deal struck in November - well, PRL decided on 70 point deduction, but I'd have preferred something like "all league points earned are voided" so ending up the season on -80 - though I'd rather PRL had the right to force the forensic audit, rather than having to compromise with a plea deal.

Of course, I'd be making those the rules, and applying them henceforth, NOT retrospectively (which is where PRL have pissed me off).

[Digby]

Gone through it now - the points I made were:

PRL should have the right to force a forensic audit in the event of a significant breach (or reason for suspicion for active cheating) - not have to enter what's essentially a plea bargain, whereby Sarries opted to take relegation instead. Noncompliance results in expulsion from PRL and the league structure - apply to RFU for permission to rejoin at the bottom.

Independent investigators (such as Lord Dyson) should have the right to demand players' tax returns (I don't know if this would form part of a "normal" forensic audit).

I don't mind if they can have the player's tax returns, but I also don't know if you'd be allowed them.

However if you're going to exclude teams that cheat (which so far is Leicester, Bath and Sarries) what happens to their shares in PRL?

[Which Tyler]

I don't mind if they can have the player's tax returns, but I also don't know if you'd be allowed them.

However if you're going to exclude teams that cheat (which so far is Leicester, Bath and Sarries) what happens to their shares in PRL?

Sorry - when were Bath and Leicester asked, midseason, to open their books for a full forensic audit as a result of known and repeated salary cap breaches, already proven by an independent audit?

[Digby]

I don't mind if they can have the player's tax returns, but I also don't know if you'd be allowed them.

However if you're going to exclude teams that cheat (which so far is Leicester, Bath and Sarries) what happens to their shares in PRL?

Sorry - when were Bath and Leicester asked, midseason, to open their books for a full forensic audit as a result of known and repeated salary cap breaches, already proven by an independent audit?

Not sure that's happened to either club, and they can say they didn't cheat as much, they can even say they stopped cheating when their cheating was brushed under the carpet. But cheating is cheating, and we can either be angered by the cheating or by who's doing the cheating.

[Which Tyler]

Sorry - I still don't know what you're talking about?
I'm angered by the cheating, not the who. By the amount, and by the longevity.
As some future hypothetical, then IF my suggestions were made into regulations, and IF Bath cheated to the point that a forensic audit was demanded, and IF they then refused to cooperate with said audit - then of course I think they should be expelled. It's literally what I said.

If you're talking about 2015, then put up or shut up, because ALL the actual evidence says that only Saracens were even investigated.
If you're talking about the late 80s and early 90s, then you need to add Quins and Saints (at least, almost certainly others) to the list.
If you're talking about 1999-2020 and including all forms of overspend then you need to add Quins, Saints, Sale, Bristol, Exeter, Gloucester and Wasps to the list.

Regardless, you need to read what was said - both about noncompliance for a demand to forensic audit and about not applying retrospectively. That, or make your own point, rather than quote one of mine and reframe it to mean something completely different.

As to who gets the shares in PRL? well the first time it happened, presumablyt he shares would be voided - solving the 13 into 12 thing. Thereafter - whoever wins promotion into the premiership.

[Stom]

Plus if you're talking about known salary breaches...Quins did so. I can't remember the exact amount but if a player is injured and misses his England games, that team can go over the cap. Quins went from 4 regulars in the England squad to 1, and that forced them over the cap.

The same could easily have happened to anyone else and it's not really cheating as outlined in the regs.

[Which Tyler]

Plus if you're talking about known salary breaches...Quins did so. I can't remember the exact amount but if a player is injured and misses his England games, that team can go over the cap. Quins went from 4 regulars in the England squad to 1, and that forced them over the cap.

The same could easily have happened to anyone else and it's not really cheating as outlined in the regs.

Yup, and things like that, and Wasps, and probably everyone bar LI, Wuss and Newc - then they're under the £350k limit, no independent investigation was launched, and no demand to open their books for forensic audit - and therefore, not getting remotely close to being able to be noncompliant and meet the conditions I stated for expulsion.

[Stom]

Plus if you're talking about known salary breaches...Quins did so. I can't remember the exact amount but if a player is injured and misses his England games, that team can go over the cap. Quins went from 4 regulars in the England squad to 1, and that forced them over the cap.

The same could easily have happened to anyone else and it's not really cheating as outlined in the regs.

Yup, and things like that, and Wasps, and probably everyone bar LI, Wuss and Newc - then they're under the £350k limit, no independent investigation was launched, and no demand to open their books for forensic audit - and therefore, not getting remotely close to being able to be noncompliant and meet the conditions I stated for expulsion.

And also the fact they told PRL themselves!

[Digby]

As to who gets the shares in PRL? well the first time it happened, presumablyt he shares would be voided - solving the 13 into 12 thing. Thereafter - whoever wins promotion into the premiership.

That ownership would be voided is a drastic step, way beyond what I'd go for.

[Digby]

Plus if you're talking about known salary breaches...Quins did so. I can't remember the exact amount but if a player is injured and misses his England games, that team can go over the cap. Quins went from 4 regulars in the England squad to 1, and that forced them over the cap.

The same could easily have happened to anyone else and it's not really cheating as outlined in the regs.

Yup, and things like that, and Wasps, and probably everyone bar LI, Wuss and Newc - then they're under the £350k limit, no independent investigation was launched, and no demand to open their books for forensic audit - and therefore, not getting remotely close to being able to be noncompliant and meet the conditions I stated for expulsion.

And also the fact they told PRL themselves!

The defence being offered here is okay I took steroids, but less than Ben Johnson.

[Which Tyler]

The defence being offered here is okay I took steroids, but less than Ben Johnson.

No.
The defence being used here is "It's okay I took steroids because I took a prescription medication that WADA only added to the banned list after I'd already taken it"

[Digby]

The defence being offered here is okay I took steroids, but less than Ben Johnson.

No.
The defence being used here is "It's okay I took steroids because I took a prescription medication that WADA only added to the banned list after I'd already taken it"

Bath and Leicester didn't cheat in a time of innocence before cheating was a thing. Now you're proposing an arbitrary standard, one which happens to include Sarries and happens to exclude Bath stipulating anyone hitting/breaching that standard will be excluded from the league (and indeed leagues)and have their ownership removed. I'm taking that as more of a rant than a proposal. I think they're all cheats, even if yes Sarries are the worst.

My problem is how is a salary cap going to be policed in the event the people you'd want to implicate aren't stupid enough to present evidence? How Sarries have landed in such a mess that their books can't be inspected I've no idea, why are breaches being run through official club books? It's amateur hour on the criminality front.

[Stom]

If you drive at 32mph in a 30 zone should you have your license taken away?

[Digby]

Dragged out of the car, kneecapped and then shot in the head. If you still want to the the licence away feel free to do so, I'm not fussed either way.

[Puja]

The defence being offered here is okay I took steroids, but less than Ben Johnson.

No.
The defence being used here is "It's okay I took steroids because I took a prescription medication that WADA only added to the banned list after I'd already taken it"

Bath and Leicester didn't cheat in a time of innocence before cheating was a thing.

Citation needed. What and when exactly were these breaches by Bath and Leicester?

Puja

[Which Tyler]

1. Bath and Leicester didn't cheat in a time of innocence before cheating was a thing.
2. Now you're proposing an arbitrary standard, one which happens to include Sarries and happens to exclude Bath stipulating anyone hitting/breaching that standard will be excluded from the league (and indeed leagues)and have their ownership removed. I'm taking that as more of a rant than a proposal.
3. I think they're all cheats, even if yes Sarries are the worst.

1. Clarify when you're talking about, then as above for assin other teams and put up or shut up on the accusation.
2. That is a lie, I'm proposing no such thing
3. You're entitled to your opinion, but please don't lie about other people's

[Digby]

So you both get to be indignant about Sarries cheating, and you both get to indignant that sides you support are accused of cheating?

As per clarification I'm going with 'in the past' as I cannot be bothered to look into when it happened

[Puja]

So you both get to be indignant about Sarries cheating, and you both get to indignant that sides you support are accused of cheating?

As per clarification I'm going with 'in the past' as I cannot be bothered to look into when it happened

I'm not indignant, I'm asking for some kind of idea of when and what you are accusing both Bath and Leicester of. I've looked and I can't find any reference to either of them breaking the salary cap. You appear to be the only person who is aware that this has happened.

It's hard to work out my response to something that I've never heard of before and which the source is refusing to provide details of. Did both teams have a clerical error, was it Saracens-esque, did we do it last year, back in the mists of time, was it all an alcohol-fuelled hallucination?

Puja

[Digby]

It's going back a number of years in the case of Leicester for sure, Keith Barwell was the chap leading the complaints. And basically Leicester were saying rubbish, players come to us for less because they know they can win things, and Barwell and co were saying bollocks we speak to the same agents and there's no way you can have that squad and be under the cap. Similar points being raised on both sides as we saw this time.

It was looked into and it was (that I know of) the first report that got brushed under the carpet. The second report brushed under the carpet was the Bath and Saracens flouting of the cap that saw the clubs back down from more than private fines in the face of legal threats from Sarries, and saw a big jump in the cap limit.

I don't know we're much closer to finding a happy balance for the cap. Some sides struggle to spend to the cap, and some want to go well over to be more competitive in Europe. And there is a bit of a mess of where out domestic game is, and how it sits alongside the competing challenges of the European club game and producing test players. I'm okay having a cap that perhaps protects more the clubs lower down the league, but I don't mind if we're not winning in Europe, I'm more interested in having a variety of domestic sides to watch in our domestic league

[Which Tyler]

It was looked into and it was (that I know of) the first report that got brushed under the carpet. The second report brushed under the carpet was the Bath and Saracens flouting of the cap that saw the clubs back down from more than private fines in the face of legal threats from Sarries, and saw a big jump in the cap limit.

So 2015 - where the allegations are reported to have been unfounded, and that ONLY Saracens were being investigated?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... stars.html

"In 2014, Sportsmail revealed that PRL had launched an inquiry into Saracens and Bath following allegations raised by a whistleblower.
PRL never confirmed the names of the clubs involved, but every side except Saracens, Bath and Leicester publicly denied their set-up was being investigated.
Later, it appeared as though only Saracens had been in the spotlight. The probe lasted nearly a year and came to an end when an out-of-court settlement was reached."


Or are we now saying that all accusations are proven, regardless of actual proof - and not just proven, but proven as worst case scenarios, even if dismissed as being an actual accusation?

[Digby]

It was looked into and it was (that I know of) the first report that got brushed under the carpet. The second report brushed under the carpet was the Bath and Saracens flouting of the cap that saw the clubs back down from more than private fines in the face of legal threats from Sarries, and saw a big jump in the cap limit.

So 2015 - where the allegations are reported to have been unfounded, and that ONLY Saracens were being investigated?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... stars.html

"In 2014, Sportsmail revealed that PRL had launched an inquiry into Saracens and Bath following allegations raised by a whistleblower.
PRL never confirmed the names of the clubs involved, but every side except Saracens, Bath and Leicester publicly denied their set-up was being investigated.
Later, it appeared as though only Saracens had been in the spotlight. The probe lasted nearly a year and came to an end when an out-of-court settlement was reached."


Or are we now saying that all accusations are proven, regardless of actual proof - and not just proven, but proven as worst case scenarios, even if dismissed as being an actual accusation?

I can't speak for others but citing the Mail seems low, really low. Unless it's a Katie Hopkins article, then it's probably okay

When it comes to allegations I tend to think if you'd asked me a couple of months back were Sarries salary cheats even though nothing was proven then I'd have answered yep, they're salary cheats. By all means continue to stick up for the ethics of Bruce Craig, I am though going to continue to take a less complimentary view of the chap

[Puja]

It was looked into and it was (that I know of) the first report that got brushed under the carpet. The second report brushed under the carpet was the Bath and Saracens flouting of the cap that saw the clubs back down from more than private fines in the face of legal threats from Sarries, and saw a big jump in the cap limit.

So 2015 - where the allegations are reported to have been unfounded, and that ONLY Saracens were being investigated?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... stars.html

"In 2014, Sportsmail revealed that PRL had launched an inquiry into Saracens and Bath following allegations raised by a whistleblower.
PRL never confirmed the names of the clubs involved, but every side except Saracens, Bath and Leicester publicly denied their set-up was being investigated.
Later, it appeared as though only Saracens had been in the spotlight. The probe lasted nearly a year and came to an end when an out-of-court settlement was reached."


Or are we now saying that all accusations are proven, regardless of actual proof - and not just proven, but proven as worst case scenarios, even if dismissed as being an actual accusation?

I can't speak for others but citing the Mail seems low, really low. Unless it's a Katie Hopkins article, then it's probably okay

When it comes to allegations I tend to think if you'd asked me a couple of months back were Sarries salary cheats even though nothing was proven then I'd have answered yep, they're salary cheats. By all means continue to stick up for the ethics of Bruce Craig, I am though going to continue to take a less complimentary view of the chap

For a start, Saracens this season had three international tightheads, two international looseheads, and four international locks. They kept signing in international stars like Williams and Daly, without ever having to let anyone go. Guessing that they were salary cap cheats was not entirely unreasonable. This was the Bath squad of 2015, which is hardly in the same league.

Secondly, the only evidence that Bath were investigated is apparently your hunch, the fact that you think Bruce Craig has not ethics, and the fact that they said they weren't going to comment on investigations rather than outright stating they weren't involved (and I will note, it is not entirely out of the realms of possibility that one of the 9 who said they weren't involved could have been fibbing). Even if we disregard the Mail article that exonerates Bath entirely (which strikes me as generally good practice), there is literally no evidence or allegation that Bath broke the salary cap, aside from speculation with nothing behind it.

Thirdly, this isn't really germane to the fact that you didn't read Which's original post correctly - their proposal was that PRL should have the right to force a forensic audit in the event of a significant breach or reason for suspicion of active cheating and that only a side who refuses to cooperate gets excluded. There was never a suggestion that all cheating of any stripe should lead to exclusion - the only thing that led to exclusion was refusing to cooperate.

Which's proposals were *never* tailoring things specifically to Saracens - if anything, their suggestion would have been beneficial if it has been around at the time of your hunch as, if there had been any evidence or suspicion of untoward behaviour, then an audit could have been forced and the issue been sorted.

Puja

[Digby]

I did read his post, I was merely amused that significant cheating is what happens at other clubs

And yes the Bath squad back then isn't as good as Sarries now, but I'd say the same thing for Sarries, all we're really seeing/saying there is continuing to cheat pays dividends

[Puja]

I did read his post, I was merely amused that significant cheating is what happens at other clubs

And yes the Bath squad back then isn't as good as Sarries now, but I'd say the same thing for Sarries, all we're really seeing/saying there is continuing to cheat pays dividends

Your first post doesn't suggest you read it well enough:

However if you're going to exclude teams that cheat (which so far is Leicester, Bath and Sarries) what happens to their shares in PRL?

considering they never suggested excluding teams that cheat, just ones that refuse to cooperate with an audit.

Also, no-one has suggested that significant cheating is what happens at other clubs - people are noting that the only verified breaches have been Quins and Saracens and the two were in very different leagues of seriousness. People are confused that you are calling out Bath and Leicester for cheating based on nothing more than your hunches and equating that to Saracens actually being found guilty of a breach.

Puja