Are Saracens about to get automatically relegated?

[Timbo]

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?

If you scroll down to part c) from point 282 onwards the overspend amount are in bold.

In terms of declared salary they, incredibly, fell a few hundred grand under the cap limits for 2 of the seasons

[Mellsblue]

In terms of declared salary they, incredibly, fell a few hundred grand under the cap limits for 2 of the seasons

Someone’s getting fired.

[Digby]

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.

They've been on it ever since Johnson left

[Big D]

One of you guys that read the report is what Wray says correct that the salary cap manager can determine Itoje's image rights value (via their accountant) for the sake of the salary cap despite the club using another accountants?

https://www.saracens.com/club-statement ... igel-wray/

[Timbo]

One of you guys that read the report is what Wray says correct that the salary cap manager can determine Itoje's image rights value (via their accountant) for the sake of the salary cap despite the club using another accountants?

https://www.saracens.com/club-statement ... igel-wray/

Basically, yes! As long as he can show his working and that he acted reasonably and in accordance with the regulations.

[Tom Moore]

One of you guys that read the report is what Wray says correct that the salary cap manager can determine Itoje's image rights value (via their accountant) for the sake of the salary cap despite the club using another accountants?

https://www.saracens.com/club-statement ... igel-wray/

Basically, yes! As long as he can show his working and that he acted reasonably and in accordance with the regulations.

Similar to a judicial review, you don't empirically prove you're correct, just that your decision was reasonable. I was not impressed with the "arguments" Saracens barrister made, basically quoting a text book with no supporting statements or further info.

[Banquo]

May have missed it, but practically how does the relegation work? Do Sarries still have the minus 35, but continue to accumulate points and get relegated irrespective of where they finish? What would happen if they got into play off position in that scenario? If there is nothing to be gained for them, then surely they will just ignore the league, effectively gifting their remaining games.

[Mikey Brown]

Aren't they minus 70 now, plus whatever they've gained this season? I thought relegation was only confirmed because they can't mathematically finish above 12th?

[Mikey Brown]

Might have made sense for me to take 3 seconds to check the table before posting that. They're currently on -7, so no I guess they haven't had the second deduction? Only 18 points behind Tigers.

[Mikey Brown]

*Last updated 5th January 2020 at 16:55

Why do I keep expecting the BBC to be reliable or up to date?

[Banquo]

Might have made sense for me to take 3 seconds to check the table before posting that. They're currently on -7, so no I guess they haven't had the second deduction? Only 18 points behind Tigers.

That’s my question- I don’t think it’s obvious HOW this will be enforced. And it does matter.

[Mellsblue]

I think the speculation was that PRL had added the extra 35point deduction, which effectively meant they were relegated, as there’s nothing in PRL rules and regs stating automatic relegation is a punishment for breaching the salary cap. However, from what I’m reading they have just been relegated. The PRL CEO, or whatever the head honcho is called, has said, in answer to a direct question, that if Sarries make the top four they won’t enter the playoffs. Given that, you’ve got to assume it is automatic relegation and not a further 35pt deduction.

[Mellsblue]

Might have made sense for me to take 3 seconds to check the table before posting that. They're currently on -7, so no I guess they haven't had the second deduction? Only 18 points behind Tigers.

That’s my question- I don’t think it’s obvious HOW this will be enforced. And it does matter.

PRL/the other 12 clubs do seem to have just started playing fast and loose with the rules and regs. They, also, just aren’t learning that hiding info makes matters worse.

[Puja]

*Last updated 5th January 2020 at 16:55

Why do I keep expecting the BBC to be reliable or up to date?

The official GP site still has them at -7 as well.

Puja

[Digby]

I think the regs don't allow for simply relegation to be applied, they can apply points deductions for payments over the cap and those are graded, they can apply a fine (and I don't think that's limited) and then can reduce the salary cap for the offending club.

So I assume they've toted up the relative points deductions, and from memory that'd be another 35 point deduction, if we're just going with three years off abuse and one of those years came in with Sarries overspend around £100k 'cause that's a long way under the level that incurs a points deduction.

[Which Tyler]

Brian Moore's opinion - in 17 tweets

[fivepointer]

This is well worth a read.

This is particularly damning.

" The report states that Saracens settled disciplinary proceedings over breaches of the cap in 2015, and were in effect issued with a warning. Consequently, Saracens ought to have been particularly wary of anything which might have constituted further breaches of the cap"

[Banquo]

Well there’s a lot of assumptions- anyone KNOW? The original judgement had 2x 35 point deductions running concurrently. Has PRL now said they aren’t concurrently and on what basis? Because they originally dropped 70 points as automatic relegation was against the spirit of the regs

Are Sarries obliged to put decent strength teams out?

[fivepointer]

Moore is very good.

His conclusions are hard to refute.

A. Saracens are a golden shareholder in PRL. They are responsible for its running and regulations as much as any other club and agreed the details of the previous and current salary cap rules. It is ludicrous to allege rules you voluntarily adopt are illegal.

B. It is no defence at all to say that you did not deliberately break rules which you agree and over which you have already had to settle previous charges. The panel did not find Saracens innocently broke the rules; it said they were reckless.

C. Sanctions were actually minimised by panel from those which could have been imposed strictly.

D. The extra 35-point deduction was imposed for breaches which Saracens admitted would take place this after this judgement.

[Banquo]

Moore is very good.

His conclusions are hard to refute.

A. Saracens are a golden shareholder in PRL. They are responsible for its running and regulations as much as any other club and agreed the details of the previous and current salary cap rules. It is ludicrous to allege rules you voluntarily adopt are illegal.

B. It is no defence at all to say that you did not deliberately break rules which you agree and over which you have already had to settle previous charges. The panel did not find Saracens innocently broke the rules; it said they were reckless.

C. Sanctions were actually minimised by panel from those which could have been imposed strictly.

D. The extra 35-point deduction was imposed for breaches which Saracens admitted would take place this after this judgement.

Is this the original judgement? Because that extra 35 points was concurrent in the original

[Which Tyler]

Is this the original judgement? Because that extra 35 points was concurrent in the original

My undestanding is that the original judgement stands; so £5.36M fine and 35 point deductions, as punishment for for 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 breaches.

However, they have also admitted to being in breach for 2019-20 - which introduces further sanctions. They were offered forensic investigation, along with return of trophie, or relegation - they chose the latter; but that's for the 2019-20 season's breach, not covered in the November 2019 report.

Originally, I had thought it was 35 point deduction, and another 35+ suspended sentence pending good behaviour for however long - but that appears to have been wrong. I wouldn't be too surprised if my current understanding ends up being wrong too.

[Banquo]

Is this the original judgement? Because that extra 35 points was concurrent in the original

My undestanding is that the original judgement stands; so £5.36M fine and 35 point deductions, as punishment for for 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 breaches.

However, they have also admitted to being in breach for 2019-20 - which introduces further sanctions. They were offered forensic investigation, along with return of trophie, or relegation - they chose the latter; but that's for the 2019-20 season's breach, not covered in the November 2019 report.

Originally, I had thought it was 35 point deduction, and another 35+ suspended sentence pending good behaviour for however long - but that appears to have been wrong.

Yep understand that, but HOW will the relegation be implemented?

[Oakboy]

Was it not Saracens choice to be relegated rather than submit to a full audit? Their decision in that respect overrules the machinery of the disciplinary process perhaps?

[Which Tyler]

Yep understand that, but HOW will the relegation be implemented?

Dunno.
Personally, I'd simple expunge any league points won by Saracen's for the year (assuming that awarding a 28-0 victory, and a rest weekend to their opponent isn't palatable)

[Banquo]

Was it not Saracens choice to be relegated rather than submit to a full audit? Their decision in that respect overrules the machinery of the disciplinary process perhaps?

That’s not the point- I’m asking how prl will implement it.