Are Saracens about to get automatically relegated?

[Oakboy]

Saracens admit they are over the cap this season but prefer relegation to audit. Has anything been said to explain what else needed covering up other than knowingly exceeding the cap? What was so secret once the offence was admitted? I still don't get it.

[Banquo]

The excellent Rugby & the Law twitter feed has a view on the PRL announcement.

I was going to say, Sarries must have a lot to hide to allow this to go unchallenged. See Dors point.

[Raggs]

Saracens admit they are over the cap this season but prefer relegation to audit. Has anything been said to explain what else needed covering up other than knowingly exceeding the cap? What was so secret once the offence was admitted? I still don't get it.

It may be they're covering up the extent of the cap excesses. Every extra pound over in 2 of those seasons, will cost them another £3. Could be an even larger fine.

[Which Tyler]

Saracens admit they are over the cap this season but prefer relegation to audit. Has anything been said to explain what else needed covering up other than knowingly exceeding the cap? What was so secret once the offence was admitted? I still don't get it.

Extent of the breach (things the recent audit didn't uncover) and duration of the breach (the demand was for a forensic audit going back 10 years)

[Banquo]

Saracens admit they are over the cap this season but prefer relegation to audit. Has anything been said to explain what else needed covering up other than knowingly exceeding the cap? What was so secret once the offence was admitted? I still don't get it.

It may be they're covering up the extent of the cap excesses. Every extra pound over in 2 of those seasons, will cost them another £3. Could be an even larger fine.

Maybe also protecting players/employees. HMRC might be sniffing about already.

[Puja]

As well as the above, they just need the bleeding to stop. I'd imagine sponsors already aren't thrilled about being associated with "that team that cheated" and Saracens are far better off accepting a season in the Champ and attempting to spin themselves as humble, contrite (and possibly a little bit hard done by, through pet journalists), than they are going through an audit and another few months of ever worsening headlines before then getting relegated.

Puja

[Banquo]

As well as the above, they just need the bleeding to stop. I'd imagine sponsors already aren't thrilled about being associated with "that team that cheated" and Saracens are far better off accepting a season in the Champ and attempting to spin themselves as humble, contrite (and possibly a little bit hard done by, through pet journalists), than they are going through an audit and another few months of ever worsening headlines before then getting relegated.

Puja

PR, indeed so. Especially as PRL are unsurprisingly now coming across as the amateurs they are.

[Mellsblue]

There will be a lot of info in there that can be used by the other clubs in the future, eg individual player salaries when in negotiations for a potential change of clubs, ip on future plans etc etc

On the other side of the coin, much more of this making stuff up on the hoof and Sarries might end looking like the wronged party.

[Oakboy]

But, at some point (determined by whom?) Saracens have to come back on board and they can't do that without an audit, can they? In fact, as I've read it, they denied access to the PL's Governance Officer. Presumably that access cannot be denied according to the rules so is it as simple (to this simpleton) as 'open your books or stay out'?

[Eugene Wrayburn]

The excellent Rugby & the Law twitter feed has a view on the PRL announcement.

That's not a great legal analysis, looking at the full twitter thread. There's no need for "reasonable suspicion" in regulation 4.9(d) because the club needs to have been already found to be in breach of the cap by £350k by a disciplinary panel for it to operate.

It isn't necessarily true that the regulation change is what they are using to get rid of Sarries. It is possible that they've recognised the gap in their regulations from the Sarries situation and moved to fix it in advance of the next time. That doesn't mean that Sarries haven't signed up to their relegation, coming to the view that there's a potential for something worse to happen. That the punishment handed to them is consistent with the new law is hardly a surprise since if they think that's what they need to do to Sarries then it's what they think they need to do if the situation recurs.

[jimKRFC]

....what happens to the upcoming games with Sarries? I thought you didn't care how they were relegated

I don't/didn't...

I feel Sarries should play the remaining fixtures, but just as friendlies, it seems unfair for one team (Bath, Worcester etc..) to play a Sarries team fighting for it's life and another (Quins) playing a demoted, demoralised, Sarries with nothing to play for. How will a side that misses out on top the 6 feel if it's due to some extra points picked up playing a team already down.

[Banquo]

....what happens to the upcoming games with Sarries? I thought you didn't care how they were relegated

I don't/didn't...

I feel Sarries should play the remaining fixtures, but just as friendlies, it seems unfair for one team (Bath, Worcester etc..) to play a Sarries team fighting for it's life and another (Quins) playing a demoted, demoralised, Sarries with nothing to play for. How will a side that misses out on top the 6 feel if it's due to some extra points picked up playing a team already down.

So you do care . My original point was how it is done does matter, as you’ve just illuminated.

[Timbo]

But, at some point (determined by whom?) Saracens have to come back on board and they can't do that without an audit, can they? In fact, as I've read it, they denied access to the PL's Governance Officer. Presumably that access cannot be denied according to the rules so is it as simple (to this simpleton) as 'open your books or stay out'?

I think there’s a difference between a full forensic audit of their business (which is what Saracens have refused mid season ALLEGEDLY) , and the sort of due diligence required to comply with the salary cap.

Reportedly Saracens refused an immediate full forensic audit of their books dating back 3+ years, but were prepared to allow an audit of this years books at the end of the season.

[Mellsblue]

But, at some point (determined by whom?) Saracens have to come back on board and they can't do that without an audit, can they? In fact, as I've read it, they denied access to the PL's Governance Officer. Presumably that access cannot be denied according to the rules so is it as simple (to this simpleton) as 'open your books or stay out'?

I think there’s a difference between a full forensic audit of their business (which is what Saracens have refused mid season ALLEGEDLY) , and the sort of due diligence required to comply with the salary cap.

Reportedly Saracens refused an immediate full forensic audit of their books dating back 3+ years, but were prepared to allow an audit of this years books at the end of the season.

This is what I’ve read. PRL’s request was to basically handover all their financial info going back years, ie a shed load of stuff that has no ramifications on adherence to the cap.

[Digby]

....what happens to the upcoming games with Sarries? I thought you didn't care how they were relegated

I don't/didn't...

I feel Sarries should play the remaining fixtures, but just as friendlies, it seems unfair for one team (Bath, Worcester etc..) to play a Sarries team fighting for it's life and another (Quins) playing a demoted, demoralised, Sarries with nothing to play for. How will a side that misses out on top the 6 feel if it's due to some extra points picked up playing a team already down.

A side missing out should feel like they should have done better in their games. There's always going to be things that break for or against you in a season

[Oakboy]

But, at some point (determined by whom?) Saracens have to come back on board and they can't do that without an audit, can they? In fact, as I've read it, they denied access to the PL's Governance Officer. Presumably that access cannot be denied according to the rules so is it as simple (to this simpleton) as 'open your books or stay out'?

I think there’s a difference between a full forensic audit of their business (which is what Saracens have refused mid season ALLEGEDLY) , and the sort of due diligence required to comply with the salary cap.

Reportedly Saracens refused an immediate full forensic audit of their books dating back 3+ years, but were prepared to allow an audit of this years books at the end of the season.

This is what I’ve read. PRL’s request was to basically handover all their financial info going back years, ie a shed load of stuff that has no ramifications on adherence to the cap.

How can an auditor know what is or is not a relevant income without seeing everything? Anything other than complete transparency automatically raises suspicion, doesn't it?

[Mellsblue]

I think there’s a difference between a full forensic audit of their business (which is what Saracens have refused mid season ALLEGEDLY) , and the sort of due diligence required to comply with the salary cap.

Reportedly Saracens refused an immediate full forensic audit of their books dating back 3+ years, but were prepared to allow an audit of this years books at the end of the season.

This is what I’ve read. PRL’s request was to basically handover all their financial info going back years, ie a shed load of stuff that has no ramifications on adherence to the cap.

How can an auditor know what is or is not a relevant income without seeing everything? Anything other than complete transparency automatically raises suspicion, doesn't it?

I agree but I’m just putting forward arguments for why a refusal doesn’t automatically equal they must be cheating even more than has been found. Also, by that logic all clubs should submit to a full forensic audit otherwise they could also be breaking the salary cap.

[Oakboy]

This is what I’ve read. PRL’s request was to basically handover all their financial info going back years, ie a shed load of stuff that has no ramifications on adherence to the cap.

How can an auditor know what is or is not a relevant income without seeing everything? Anything other than complete transparency automatically raises suspicion, doesn't it?

I agree but I’m just putting forward arguments for why a refusal doesn’t automatically equal they must be cheating even more than has been found. Also, by that logic all clubs should submit to a full forensic audit otherwise they could also be breaking the salary cap.

But, in all this, denying the PL's Governance Officer access ranks as pretty condemnatory in my eyes. Any club doing that can surely expect demands for a full audit on the grounds of 'no smoke without fire'.

Back in my building society management days, saying to an auditor that he/she did not need to see X, Y or Z, guaranteed an immediate demand for full scrutiny of all three. Such non-diplomacy is incompetent and suspicious to say the least.

[Mellsblue]

How can an auditor know what is or is not a relevant income without seeing everything? Anything other than complete transparency automatically raises suspicion, doesn't it?

I agree but I’m just putting forward arguments for why a refusal doesn’t automatically equal they must be cheating even more than has been found. Also, by that logic all clubs should submit to a full forensic audit otherwise they could also be breaking the salary cap.

But, in all this, denying the PL's Governance Officer access ranks as pretty condemnatory in my eyes. Any club doing that can surely expect demands for a full audit on the grounds of 'no smoke without fire'.

Back in my building society management days, saying to an auditor that he/she did not need to see X, Y or Z, guaranteed an immediate demand for full scrutiny of all three. Such non-diplomacy is incompetent and suspicious to say the least.

I’m not sure your first para is true.

Regardless, I’m not going to defend them. I can just see arguments why refusal to submit to a forensic audit doesn’t necessarily mean they have more to hide with regards the salary cap.

[Digby]

Sarries are the gift that keeps on giving this season. They could be out of Europe having played an ineligible player in a win over Racing, though I don't know exactly where it crosses from being a financial fine to a points deduction. If it is a points deduction and Glasgow go through then Sarries have only themselves to blame

[Which Tyler]

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/ ... 35748.html

Fielding an ineligible player in Europe (by a few hours as work visa expired).
Plenty of preceden in the premiership, though I can think of any in Europe. IIRC, it's a 5 point deduction in the prem. Which would see them out of Europe...

[fivepointer]

Now that is an administrative error.

[Digby]

I don't see the mitigation would be, it's like being pregnant, you either are or you're not

[Which Tyler]

Of course, precedent usually covers breach in competition rules (registered with another club), not national law - and to my understanding, national law means that you can still work as long as you're in the process or extending the visa - so it OUGHT to be okay.
So it'll just depend on whether EPRC want to give them a kicking as well...


ETA: I recalled incorrectly - Sale got 1 point, Gloucester and Exeter got 2 for theirs; LWelsh got 5, but for a player who'd played several games, not one.
By my maths, a 1 point deduction means that Sarries retain their place (4 wins to Glasgow's 3); but a 2 point deduction gives that spot to Glasgow

[Mikey Brown]

Haha.