RugbyRebels

I think if it wasn't a lions year a couple would play.
Would imagine if it was a loan, Sarries would have to pay the bulk of the contract to get clubs to sign them.

What Club would really want Farrell for example?
Bristol don't play his style, maybe Worcester?

Could see Bristol going all out for Itoje and Mako if they have the cap space Lam brags about.

Digby wrote:I was going to say Quins and Bath, 'cause of the posh boy associations. Saints are a reasonable shout owing to the hideous colours of their kit

Quins are easiest for the media to get to...
On the other hand, I don't recall there really being a "team everyone hates" before Sarries started their "Everyone hates us, and here's why they should" campaign. Each club had its own couple of special rivals.
Plenty of jest, and the odd bit of jealousy for whichever team was going through a phase on top - but nothing like the same extent.
Mind you, Sarries started their "charm offensive" at the dawn of the twitter / online troll age; so maybe we do all need to rally around and hate someone

Tigersman wrote: I think if it wasn't a lions year a couple would play.
Would imagine if it was a loan, Sarries would have to pay the bulk of the contract to get clubs to sign them.

What Club would really want Farrell for example?
Bristol don't play his style, maybe Worcester?

Could see Bristol going all out for Itoje and Mako if they have the cap space Lam brags about.

I hope you're right about Farrell! Don't want him at Bristol..

Mako and Lozowski would be the first names I think Pat would look at, then a lock.. Can't see it happening though - there's something special going on at Sarries!

Edit - "my phone lit up" by Pat Lam: https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/sport/rug ... rs-3763494

Think his comments that we close to the cap for next season (as are most DoRs) means the Sarries big earners are in for pay cuts or a move abroad.

Oh god.

I wish this hadn't just re-entered my consciousness.



It might literally be the most annoying thing I've ever seen.

Even more galling is that they were totally correct.

Think they deserve religation just for that song!

Nobody seems to mention Spencer much. I think he could still develop well in the right environment i.e. away from Farrell. That he has not, to date, and that he has been a reluctant pick by Jones has always seemed odd based on looking at his physical attributes and skill-set. Normally, a head coach would be keen on a club 9/10 pairing.

Oakboy wrote:Nobody seems to mention Spencer much. I think he could still develop well in the right environment i.e. away from Farrell. That he has not, to date, and that he has been a reluctant pick by Jones has always seemed odd based on looking at his physical attributes and skill-set. Normally, a head coach would be keen on a club 9/10 pairing.

When I mention him I tend to note if Youngs passed like that people would complain.

Digby wrote:

Oakboy wrote:Nobody seems to mention Spencer much. I think he could still develop well in the right environment i.e. away from Farrell. That he has not, to date, and that he has been a reluctant pick by Jones has always seemed odd based on looking at his physical attributes and skill-set. Normally, a head coach would be keen on a club 9/10 pairing.

When I mention him I tend to note if Youngs passed like that people would complain.

Aye. Spencer only gets love because he's not Youngs...

He's average at best. He looked like he could be more...but never developed.

Mikey Brown wrote:Oh god.

I wish this hadn't just re-entered my consciousness.



It might literally be the most annoying thing I've ever seen.

Even more galling is that they were totally correct.

That's not even the most galling version of that song, they've cleaned that up to remove some of the arrogance. Not that it bothers me in either version

Stom wrote:Aye. Spencer only gets love because he's not Youngs...

He's average at best. He looked like he could be more...but never developed.

And in spite of that, I'd still have him at Bath.
Farrell too.
Both would be upgrade on what we currently have.

Lozowski would be my #1 target from Sarries though - and it's thought that that was the case even when it was "just" a 35 point deduction.

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote:Aye. Spencer only gets love because he's not Youngs...

He's average at best. He looked like he could be more...but never developed.

And in spite of that, I'd still have him at Bath.
Farrell too.
Both would be upgrade on what we currently have.

Lozowski would be my #1 target from Sarries though - and it's thought that that was the case even when it was "just" a 35 point deduction.

It’s incredibly obvious which 2 Quins would do well to sign...

Stom wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Stom wrote:Aye. Spencer only gets love because he's not Youngs...

He's average at best. He looked like he could be more...but never developed.

And in spite of that, I'd still have him at Bath.
Farrell too.
Both would be upgrade on what we currently have.

Lozowski would be my #1 target from Sarries though - and it's thought that that was the case even when it was "just" a 35 point deduction.

It’s incredibly obvious which 2 Quins would do well to sign...

Well obviously Duncan Taylor for one, but do they have a second injury-prone centre on their books at the moment? Bosch is retired right?

As others have said, it is going to be interesting. I can't help feeling guilty to think that, though, and there is a danger that the disgrace of it all will be forgotten too easily. Rugby, with all its fine traditions, ought to have more collective shame. It's a bit as if Saracens were just unlucky to get caught whereas the whole caboodle from chairman to kitman were corrupt. Worse still, they were openly enjoying the success associated with cheating.

How much better the game would be if Saracens had shelled sufficient players at the start of the season to get under the cap. Instead of relegation etc. we would be watching to see how good they were without 6 or 7 top players.

My son suggested just lining up the Sarries squad in a playground and letting each captain from the other teams take turns to pick who they wanted, 'like we do at school'.

Not the worst idea.

If Exeter run away with everything for the next three seasons then they’ll soon be hated. Whether, playing devils advocate, it’s the racist chant, playing keep ball/body flopping in the red zone, financial doping by using income the conference facilities to prop up the rugby arm of the business, the stockpiling of international players now that anyone who wants to play in the Prem and have medals to show for it will need to go there, or all of the above. If you’re a run away success you’ll be shot at.

With regards to who Sarries hold on to, I think how long they are relegated will be crucial. One season and I think they’ll hold on to most of those they want to keep to get under the cap. They’re not going to play much domestic rugby for the rest of this season so, the Eng players could go to Japan, play the AIs and the 6N, plus a handful of home games in the Champ to pull in the crowds. They’d also be available from day one, and even before, for the Lions. They could even be the Harlem Globetrotters of rugby for a year. Playing exhibition matches to top up the coffers. If they win Europe this season, a club world champs match against the winners of super rugby suddenly becomes a distinctly possibility.
It might even be sustainable for their top tier internationals for a couple of seasons. It would be those on the fringes of the Eng squad - Lowzowski, Isiekwe etc - that might not go with them. Of course, some may not have any choice but to stay or take a massive pay cut.

As I type out my verbal diarrhoea, it dawns on me that the other 11 clubs have stuck the knife in at the perfect time to do maximum damage. If they’d been relegated a couple of months ago they would’ve concentrated on Europe and almost certainly not be playing Leinster away in the QF.

I R Geech wrote:My son suggested just lining up the Sarries squad in a playground and letting each captain from the other teams take turns to pick who they wanted, 'like we do at school'.

Not the worst idea.

In reverse order ala the NFL draft. Could televise it etc. Genius!

Venter is saying when he found out they were above the cap he asked by how much, and nobody at Sarries could tell him. That in and of itself sounds like a problem when you have to certify exactly the amount you're spending to the salary cap manager, is is the defence they know how much they were certifying but not how much they were over?

Digby wrote:

Venter is saying when he found out they were above the cap he asked by how much, and nobody at Sarries could tell him. That in and of itself sounds like a problem when you have to certify exactly the amount you're spending to the salary cap manager, is is the defence they know how much they were certifying but not how much they were over?

He also seems to think "but Saracens were overspending for years before I arrived as well" is a good defence, and evidence that Saracens are not overspending now.
Erm...

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:

Venter is saying when he found out they were above the cap he asked by how much, and nobody at Sarries could tell him. That in and of itself sounds like a problem when you have to certify exactly the amount you're spending to the salary cap manager, is is the defence they know how much they were certifying but not how much they were over?

He also seems to think "but Saracens were overspending for years before I arrived as well" is a good defence, and evidence that Saracens are not overspending now.
Erm...

He's absolutely right money isn't the only reason they've done well. But his disregard for the overspend and that other clubs lost players like Billy and Singleton is... unpleasant

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:

Venter is saying when he found out they were above the cap he asked by how much, and nobody at Sarries could tell him. That in and of itself sounds like a problem when you have to certify exactly the amount you're spending to the salary cap manager, is is the defence they know how much they were certifying but not how much they were over?

He also seems to think "but Saracens were overspending for years before I arrived as well" is a good defence, and evidence that Saracens are not overspending now.
Erm...

He's absolutely right money isn't the only reason they've done well. But his disregard for the overspend and that other clubs lost players like Billy and Singleton is... unpleasant

And plenty of others. Quins win the Prem, Sarries take Johnston off them (who gets a convenient pie deal at the stadium). Then there's the likes of Lozowski and Lewington. Further ignoring the fact that Sarries have been able to hold onto the likes of Tomkins and even George, despite them not being first choice for many seasons.

EDIT - Let's also add that having happy players is going to be easier if they're getting paid higher than the market rate for them would be.

And Strettle. The fuckers.

Exactly. Co-investments aside (and it's a hell of an aside) it doesn't appear that they were overpaying any specific player, they just had too many top-class talents, and chose not to make those difficult decisions when young players demanded more, or they wanted a new shiny toy.

Bath wanted Cokanasiga - and lost Banahan to pay for him
Wasps wanted Sopoaga - and lost Cipriani to pay for him
Exeter wanted Hogg - and lost Cordero to pay for him
Sarries wanted Williams - and kept Goode
Sarries wanted Daly - and kept both Goode and Williams
Quin's found that a batch of youngsters were becoming senior and wanted paying accordingly, and could only afford 3 of Strettle, JTH, Brown and Monye - Sarries added Strettle without anyone else making way.

This not only means that Saracen's are stronger than they would otherwise be, but that other clubs are weaker, because those other top-class players already at Saracen's simply don't come into the market. Maybe Wasps would have liked to replace Daly, with a Williams, or a Goode, or a Maitland, or even a Lewington or Duncan Taylor...

Duncan Taylor does sound like kind of signing Wasps would have made, so that's one example where other clubs have benefitted from Saracens' hoarding.

Puja

Which Tyler wrote:Exactly. Co-investments aside (and it's a hell of an aside) it doesn't appear that they were overpaying any specific player, they just had too many top-class talents, and chose not to make those difficult decisions when young players demanded more, or they wanted a new shiny toy.

Bath wanted Cokanasiga - and lost Banahan to pay for him
Wasps wanted Sopoaga - and lost Cipriani to pay for him
Exeter wanted Hogg - and lost Cordero to pay for him
Sarries wanted Williams - and kept Goode
Sarries wanted Daly - and kept both Goode and Williams
Quin's found that a batch of youngsters were becoming senior and wanted paying accordingly, and could only afford 3 of Strettle, JTH, Brown and Monye - Sarries added Strettle without anyone else making way.

This not only means that Saracen's are stronger than they would otherwise be, but that other clubs are weaker, because those other top-class players already at Saracen's simply don't come into the market. Maybe Wasps would have liked to replace Daly, with a Williams, or a Goode, or a Maitland, or even a Lewington or Duncan Taylor...

And it's massive for how you put a squad together that you don't suddenly lose as have Wasps Billy and Nathan Hughes, you have so much more control that allows you to advance. Okay they still had to advance and not squander money, and heaven knows some clubs (Glaws for sure, at least until very recently) would screw that up, but it's a massive competitive advantage

Have Sarries lost many they didn't want to? There's Auterac, Strettle who they got back, Ashton... and now I'm struggling to think of another, maybe Fraser with an early retirement due to injury but that's not cap related. And those loses are over what? 5-6 seasons?

Well indeed. No-one is saying that Sarries haven't done a "very good job". We're simply saying that they've created a very uneven playing field by a blatant disregard for the thing that was meant to create a more even playing field.