Finally a proper look at Sarries and the salary cap

[Stom]

It's interesting to look at which of the club's are being vociferous (Exeter, Quin's, Glous) and which are staying quiet (Bath, Bristol). You'd think that it would make little sense to criticise if you were in danger of breaching the cap itself.

Well, indeed.

We know Quins breached the cap on a technicality season before last (or the one before that, I forget). But they breached it by 54k or something. Not 3.78m or whatever Sarries have done.

That article by Paul Rees is predictably ridiculous: the standard of rugby reporting in the Guardian is pretty shoddy.

Sarries have a choice, just like other teams. Keep hold of Mako, Billy, Itoje, Kruis, Isiekwe, George, Wigglesworth, Spencer, Farrell, Barritt, Lozowski, Goode...or sign Skelton, Williams, Daly, Koch, Singleton, Clark, Willemse...

They've done both.

[Raggs]

The little breaches actually make me think it's working. As soon as something came up, I'm sure the books were looked at more closely. And given that your cap for a season can only be determined by the end of the season, due to how the credit system works, some errors are always likely to come up if you're skirting the edges.

[Peat]

Think we may be seeing why this wasn't chased much in the press previously, seems like numerous rugby writers are actually backing sarries or at least doing some vague hand waving.

Apologies for what I'm about to write, but thank goodness for the daily mail.

I feel dirty just reading this.

But if they're the only one standing up shouting up about it, then good on them indeed. Tbh, I haven't really followed the Premiership for the last few years because what's the point of following a bent race? It always saddens me how many were okay with doing so.

And re Digby's point about England fans being okay with it because it helped England - daresay he's right for a lot but for me, I've never really warmed to this England team partly because it's built on a solid bed of cheats.

[Sandydragon]

Think we may be seeing why this wasn't chased much in the press previously, seems like numerous rugby writers are actually backing sarries or at least doing some vague hand waving.

Apologies for what I'm about to write, but thank goodness for the daily mail.

I feel dirty just reading this.

But if they're the only one standing up shouting up about it, then good on them indeed. Tbh, I haven't really followed the Premiership for the last few years because what's the point of following a bent race? It always saddens me how many were okay with doing so.

And re Digby's point about England fans being okay with it because it helped England - daresay he's right for a lot but for me, I've never really warmed to this England team partly because it's built on a solid bed of cheats.

Steven Jones in the Times has been particularly defensive of Sarries. In his world if it’s not direct salary then it’s ok.

[Mellsblue]

Think we may be seeing why this wasn't chased much in the press previously, seems like numerous rugby writers are actually backing sarries or at least doing some vague hand waving.

Apologies for what I'm about to write, but thank goodness for the daily mail.

I feel dirty just reading this.

But if they're the only one standing up shouting up about it, then good on them indeed. Tbh, I haven't really followed the Premiership for the last few years because what's the point of following a bent race? It always saddens me how many were okay with doing so.

And re Digby's point about England fans being okay with it because it helped England - daresay he's right for a lot but for me, I've never really warmed to this England team partly because it's built on a solid bed of cheats.

Steven Jones in the Times has been particularly defensive of Sarries. In his world if it’s not direct salary then it’s ok.

I’ve just read that and come on here to post about it. It’s the usual S Jones bunkum with little basis in fact or, it seems, knowledge of the subject matter. There are a few instances were a little reading would answer his query.
It’s a shame as the other Times correspondents have been quite harsh and the paper has carried numerous quotes from people within in the game giving Sarries a good going over.
That said, there is some need for balance. Clubs should be helping players to set themselves up for when they retire - and Sarries are very good at that beyond pure ££££ - and players will join and stay at Sarries for reasons other than ££££. Both a good and pertinent points. However, he does then reach some terrible conclusions whilst also seeming to not fully understand the salary cap or the rules on punishments should it be broken.

[Adam_P]

If the arguement is that Saracens are doing it because they're really caring and want to set their players up for life after rugby, then why is it only the higher profile/paid players that are being set up in business with naughty Nige? Surely the squad players on more meagre wages are more in need of help post rugby than the likes of Vunipola and Farrell?

[Mellsblue]

That is part of the argument and Sarries are very good at looking after players. I do agree with the point in it only being the top end players benefiting from the ‘co-investment’ and it does look awfully like that on the face of it. However, if they truly are co-investments, it may only be the top end players that have the readies to invest. I’m really only playing devils advocate with that argument, though.

[Adam_P]

Frankly if players earning £200,000+ a year can't sort themselves out for a life after rugby, then they can come crashing down and live a normal life like the rest of the population of the country. They're earning per year what the average person in this country would have to work 7+ years to earn. Now I'm certainly not saying that pro rugby players dont earn their money - they put their long term health and fitness on the line every week, but the arguement that they need Nigel Wray to hold their hand after earning such high salaries doesn't fly with me. Other clubs support their players in studying part time alongside their playing career, so it doesn't need clubs owners to pump thousands of £ into co-investments to help set players up for a career after rugby.

[Mellsblue]

The issues for players in retirement go a long way past money. Giving them something to do 9-5 is the biggest thing. Going from a high pressure team orientated environment to being lonely and unemployed is bloody hard. Hence the focus on education and businesses and not just topping up their bank balance.

[Digby]

Also young men aren't famous for making sensible long term financial decisions when cash rich in their 20s. I wasn't on £200k in my 20s, but by any reasonable standard I was earning a decent sum and was already in the top tax bracket, and I broadly recall going out on any day ending in a Y

[Sandydragon]

That is part of the argument and Sarries are very good at looking after players. I do agree with the point in it only being the top end players benefiting from the ‘co-investment’ and it does look awfully like that on the face of it. However, if they truly are co-investments, it may only be the top end players that have the readies to invest. I’m really only playing devils advocate with that argument, though.

It s a weak argument in my opinion. If Sarries had some kind of resettlement scheme where players were given options to invest their own money with perhaps guidance from the owner then you could suggest it was a sensible idea for long term planning. But when the owner is putting his own money in and is a shareholder, it’s hard to ignore the fact that it’s a benefit in kind which does allow the owner to top up salaries.

[Puja]

That is part of the argument and Sarries are very good at looking after players. I do agree with the point in it only being the top end players benefiting from the ‘co-investment’ and it does look awfully like that on the face of it. However, if they truly are co-investments, it may only be the top end players that have the readies to invest. I’m really only playing devils advocate with that argument, though.

It s a weak argument in my opinion. If Sarries had some kind of resettlement scheme where players were given options to invest their own money with perhaps guidance from the owner then you could suggest it was a sensible idea for long term planning. But when the owner is putting his own money in and is a shareholder, it’s hard to ignore the fact that it’s a benefit in kind which does allow the owner to top up salaries.

It's a terrible argument to my mind. Things like the Wolfpack Lager, I can buy as that's an actual business that could provide employment post-rugby career. VunProp Investments, on the other hand, produces nothing and is a company only in the sense of providing a limited vehicle to hold shares and investments. That's not providing a future for life after rugby any more than handing them a wodge of cash does. It's not a future job; it's capital.

Puja

[Timbo]

It’s not just the top, most high profile players that have benefited from Wray’s investment. Tim Streather and Mike Ellery are just 2 others that I’ve seen mentioned.

According to the Observer the co-investment stuff was signed off by the independent panel anyway. It’s other, more vague arrangments that’s contravened the cap.

Post review/appeal PRL really need to release more details, or this will be a huge source of animosity for years to come.

[Banquo]

That is part of the argument and Sarries are very good at looking after players. I do agree with the point in it only being the top end players benefiting from the ‘co-investment’ and it does look awfully like that on the face of it. However, if they truly are co-investments, it may only be the top end players that have the readies to invest. I’m really only playing devils advocate with that argument, though.

It s a weak argument in my opinion. If Sarries had some kind of resettlement scheme where players were given options to invest their own money with perhaps guidance from the owner then you could suggest it was a sensible idea for long term planning. But when the owner is putting his own money in and is a shareholder, it’s hard to ignore the fact that it’s a benefit in kind which does allow the owner to top up salaries.

It's a terrible argument to my mind. Things like the Wolfpack Lager, I can buy as that's an actual business that could provide employment post-rugby career. VunProp Investments, on the other hand, produces nothing and is a company only in the sense of providing a limited vehicle to hold shares and investments. That's not providing a future for life after rugby any more than handing them a wodge of cash does. It's not a future job; it's capital.

Puja

According to companies house, VunProp Limited has c £1.5m of investment property. Can't quite work out what Owen A Farrell Ltd (est 2012) has or does tho....the smoking guns have been around for a fair while, which is interesting.

[Banquo]

It’s not just the top, most high profile players that have benefited from Wray’s investment. Tim Streather and Mike Ellery are just 2 others that I’ve seen mentioned.

According to the Observer the co-investment stuff was signed off by the independent panel anyway. It’s other, more vague arrangments that’s contravened the cap.

Post review/appeal PRL really need to release more details, or this will be a huge source of animosity for years to come.

agreed, The ST indicates they aren't going to, but suspect Sarries will force their hand.

[p/d]

As Brian Moore says, ‘drop the appeal and any claim that the salary cap is unlawful, as both stances are legally flawed. Take your punishment and be thankful it is not more draconian; then continue the good work you do’

[Sandydragon]

As Brian Moore says, ‘drop the appeal and any claim that the salary cap is unlawful, as both stances are legally flawed. Take your punishment and be thankful it is not more draconian; then continue the good work you do’

Once again Moore speaks sense.

[Mellsblue]

Per the times, Saracens will not appeal/ask for a review. Reasons being that they were deemed to be reckless rather than wilful in going over the cap and not wanting it to hang over them during the season. The next battle will be where the fine money goes. Supposedly, the club’s want it to be split equally amongst themselves.

[Which Tyler]

Supposedly, the club’s want it to be split equally amongst themselves.

Of course they do - PRPA or grass-roots rugby would be a much better place for it though; or even spread amongst the championship clubs just to show good-will

[Mellsblue]

Supposedly, the club’s want it to be split equally amongst themselves.

Of course they do - PRPA or grass-roots rugby would be a much better place for it though; or even spread amongst the championship clubs just to show good-will

Yep. A few all weather pitches dotted around the country, preferably in the wetter parts, or a few upgraded clubhouses would be gratefully received. It could also be used to plug the hole in the community coaching programme budget or put in to HITZ. Plenty of better uses than helping the clubs’ bottom line.
All that said, the other 11 clubs going off on Uber exorbitant holidays during the winter break would be a great way of trolling Sarries’ and their penchant for expensive team bonding trips.

[Peej]

Interesting that Stephen Jones, sympathetic to Sarries before, has consistently been handed the new exclusives since this came out. I can't imagine why. in unrelated news, a new PR firm has been employed by a North London rugby club...

Interesting that Sarries are sending a second choice team (albeit one that has a full international front row, 8 internationals in the starting XV, 12 in the match day squad, and two World Cup winners) to Racing. Does not contravene competition rules on playing your best available team?

[Tigersman]

Supposedly, the club’s want it to be split equally amongst themselves.

Of course they do - PRPA or grass-roots rugby would be a much better place for it though; or even spread amongst the championship clubs just to show good-will

whilst that is true.
Not like many of the Prem clubs are earning enough money to turn down £400,000 + each.

[Mellsblue]

Supposedly, the club’s want it to be split equally amongst themselves.

Of course they do - PRPA or grass-roots rugby would be a much better place for it though; or even spread amongst the championship clubs just to show good-will

whilst that is true.
Not like many of the Prem clubs are earning enough money to turn down £400,000 + each.

If nothing else, English rugby needs a PR win to mitigate this and RFU community programme cuts. Putting the money back in to the grassroots would help.

[Tigersman]

It’s a PRL thing right?
And I just don’t see the PRL dancing doing the RFU a favour.

Would be nice if Clubs maybe used it to invested in their own regional areas at least more.

[Mellsblue]

Yep PRL. Doesn’t preclude them from sticking the money into grassroots. Whether that’s funnelled through the clubs or not is moot, for me. Just need a positive headline out of it.