RugbyRebels

The prl report is being released.

Very interesting.

Raggs wrote:The prl report is being released.

Very interesting.

Good news, if a few months too late.

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:The prl report is being released.

Very interesting.

Good news, if a few months too late.

It looks like the new sarries chairman has basically been cornered into it with the prl saying that it was sarries blocking it's release. Well played prl.

Raggs wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Raggs wrote:The prl report is being released.

Very interesting.

Good news, if a few months too late.

It looks like the new sarries chairman has basically been cornered into it with the prl saying that it was sarries blocking it's release. Well played prl.

How much will be redacted though? All contractual payments to players are supposed to be confidential, aren't they?

Good to see Sarries doing the right thing (having exhausted all possible alternatives)

Stom wrote: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.

This. Anybody looking at it impartially would agree that they’d be there or thereabouts for Prem and Europe but they probably wouldn’t be doing the double.

Just watched that Venter interview. His hearts in the right place but he is just deluded. His argument seems to boil down to:

"It's possible to spend lots of money and not be successful so you can't say money has anything to do with Saracens success...although when Sarries were in danger of losing anyone they just sent them to Nigel West and all sorted"

At the same time, he believes in the salary cap because he wouldn't want a Man City situation because money does buy success?

Cameo wrote:Just watched that Venter interview. His hearts in the right place but he is just deluded. His argument seems to boil down to:

"It's possible to spend lots of money and not be successful so you can't say money has anything to do with Saracens success...although when Sarries were in danger of losing anyone they just sent them to Nigel West and all sorted"

At the same time, he believes in the salary cap because he wouldn't want a Man City situation because money does buy success?

Haha. Well put.

Sky reporting details from the report.

2 seasons are well over, one is only just (doesn't make much sense to me). However, given Sarries refusal to open their books, makes me think that perhaps there's some that have been missed.

So in 16/17 the over spent by 1.1m, 17/18 by 96k and last season by 906k.

Not sure if that includes Wrays payments to the players companies?

Also PWC valued shares of Itojes image rights for higher than another company did.

Raggs wrote:Sky reporting details from the report.

2 seasons are well over, one is only just (doesn't make much sense to me). However, given Sarries refusal to open their books, makes me think that perhaps there's some that have been missed.

Report seems to cover a lot.
Payments to companies.
Image rights
Properties
Corporate gigs.

I guess potentially things like employing someone mrs etc wasn't looked at

Having read Sky’s report I feel a lot more sympathetic to Sarries.

Timbo wrote:Having read Sky’s report I feel a lot more sympathetic to Sarries.

I will note that it's incredible how Sky have suddenly acquired a copy of the report somehow, and then gazumped the main release of the actual text by writing a summary highlighting contentious points and making it seem that Sarries weren't so bad and it was all honest mistakes.

What a crazy random happenstance that that happened at this time!

Puja

We’ll see when the full report is released I suppose. My guess/interpretation at this stage is that this is equal parts: Sarries taking the piss/Wray making genuine business investments/some questionable judgements from the independent panel/PRL chairmen vindictively looking to fuck Sarries over given the chance.

Fine, points deduction and the season to make any needed adjustments was fair.

Big D wrote:So in 16/17 the over spent by 1.1m, 17/18 by 96k and last season by 906k.

Not sure if that includes Wrays payments to the players companies?

Also PWC valued shares of Itojes image rights for higher than another company did.

Does that including the smoothing that things like front-loading and one-off benefits receive to make them last the entire length?
The way that bit looks, it could have been one-off payments, and the cycle of contracts simply meant there weren't any one-offs in 17/18.
So if we smooth those 3 over, it's £700k p.a. - isn't £650 the trigger for a 35 point reduction?
I'm going to be fascinated to read the report - or at least, the abstract anyway.

I'm also interested to know what this year's overspend is - given that it's January, and they've spent less than 2 weeks actually trying to get below the cap before giving up for the year.

Puja wrote:
What a crazy random happenstance that that happened at this time!

Puja

Applies both to the Sky report and someone finally taking Sarries cheating seriously whilst in unconnected manner Leicester and Wasps sit exposed toward the bottom of the table.

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
What a crazy random happenstance that that happened at this time!

Puja

Applies both to the Sky report and someone finally taking Sarries cheating seriously whilst in unconnected manner Leicester and Wasps sit exposed toward the bottom of the table.

Digby, you are adorable.

Here's the report. Sky look to have got their numbers a little wrong, it was £140k in the middle season, not £90k.

https://media-cdn.incrowdsports.com/fa0 ... a67de6.pdf

What's £50k between friends?

This story has dragged on so much it's ridiculous. I'm glad the 6N is coming up so we can focus on some thing else.

Raggs wrote:Here's the report. Sky look to have got their numbers a little wrong, it was £140k in the middle season, not £90k.

https://media-cdn.incrowdsports.com/fa0 ... a67de6.pdf

No, they’re right it was 98k.

Just skim reading the important parts, clearly they are bang to rights with some of it. Most of the property co-investments are very dodgy, given that the players assume virtually no risk. Ashtons house situation seems a little unfortunate, as the charge relies on the fact that the issue was spread over 2 salary cap years.

On Itoje’s image rights, still seems harsh to weight one valuation significantly over the other. Though the implication that this deal took place at around the same time Itoje was discussing his contract is suspicious to say the least.

One thing that’s a little disappointing is the report centres around judgement over the salary cap managers processes and whether he acted reasonably in accordance with the regulations. I would have preferred if they had proffered their own opinions and conclusions.

twitchy wrote:This story has dragged on so much it's ridiculous. I'm glad the 6N is coming up so we can focus on some thing else.

Agreed but trying to concentrate on selection without mentioning Saracens might not be straightforward.

Timbo wrote:

Raggs wrote:Here's the report. Sky look to have got their numbers a little wrong, it was £140k in the middle season, not £90k.

https://media-cdn.incrowdsports.com/fa0 ... a67de6.pdf

No, they’re right it was 98k.

Just skim reading the important parts, clearly they are bang to rights with some of it. Most of the property co-investments are very dodgy, given that the players assume virtually no risk. Ashtons house situation seems a little unfortunate, as the charge relies on the fact that the issue was spread over 2 salary cap years.

On Itoje’s image rights, still seems harsh to weight one valuation significantly over the other. Though the implication that this deal took place at around the same time Itoje was discussing his contract is suspicious to say the least.

One thing that’s a little disappointing is the report centres around judgement over the salary cap managers processes and whether he acted reasonably in accordance with the regulations. I would have preferred if they had proffered their own opinions and conclusions.

It clearly says in point 6 that it was £140k?

In any event £90k isn't the same as £98k

Digby wrote:

Puja wrote:
What a crazy random happenstance that that happened at this time!

Puja

Applies both to the Sky report and someone finally taking Sarries cheating seriously whilst in unconnected manner Leicester and Wasps sit exposed toward the bottom of the table.

The Times are reporting that a lot of the heavy lifting was done by the clubs, predominantly Quins, as they felt/knew the salary cap compliance manager was under resourced.