RugbyRebels

Which Tyler wrote: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

From memory the Glaws points reduction was suspended and we paid a 5k fine, as it was seen to have been a genuine admin error. I would reckon this will go down the same lines.

Stephen Jones recently predicted would Ed Griffiths be the best administrator of the season, the reality is they're less competent than London Welsh were, and that takes some doing.

Have to have a heart of stone not to keep laughing at this

Grenoble got fined and docked 4 pts when they did it in 2012.

50k fine, no points deduction according to bt sport

jimKRFC wrote:Grenoble got fined and docked 4 pts when they did it in 2012.

Mind, they played a player who had not been registered at all within their European squad. The way I understand this, Lamositele was registered for Europe, but his work permit ran out the day before the game, which does feel different.

Puja

Gloskarlos wrote:50k fine, no points deduction according to bt sport

Given I can’t see them beating Leinster away and the state of their finances, they’d probably have rather been kicked out. That’s a big fine when you think about it too; about the total cost of a decent admin manager.

Is it a £50k fine, or £25k with £25k suspended?

And whilst I wouldn't have worried had they been docked enough points Glasgow went through in their place it's not the most egregious example of an ineligible player we've seen, which I suspect remains Grannygate, and Grannygate barely resulted in a slap on the wrists

Digby wrote:Is it a £50k fine, or £25k with £25k suspended?

And whilst I wouldn't have worried had they been docked enough points Glasgow went through in their place it's not the most egregious example of an ineligible player we've seen, which I suspect remains Grannygate, and Grannygate barely resulted in a slap on the wrists

£25k and £25k suspended for next season, when we know they won't be in European competitions...

Allianz pull the plug:

I guess the only surprise is that it took this long

Anybody else see this tweet from Dave Swanton?

'After @Saracens got docked 1000 points am hearing today that the anal nerves at two other clubs are twitching. After relegating Sarries PRL set a precedent. Worrying thing is the two clubs in question voted for Sarries execution.'

If true I’m wondering which two other clubs are most likely.... and hoping beyond everything one of them isn’t Glaws.

Gloskarlos wrote:Anybody else see this tweet from Dave Swanton?

'After @Saracens got docked 1000 points am hearing today that the anal nerves at two other clubs are twitching. After relegating Sarries PRL set a precedent. Worrying thing is the two clubs in question voted for Sarries execution.'

If true I’m wondering which two other clubs are most likely.... and hoping beyond everything one of them isn’t Glaws.

Suspect that it's the same BS allegations from 2015 that's already been disproven.

Having done that breakdown of the squads; either it's only Saracens, or it's 10 clubs, of which Saracens are simply the worst offenders.

Top Class Internationals:
5 Bath
2 Bristol
3 Exeter
1 Gloucester
2 Harlequins
6 Leicester
4 Northampton
2 Sale
11 Saracens
1 Wasps
Only Bath and Leicester stand out as having "a lot". Remember, each club has 2 marquee slots available, so take that out, and you'd need all of Bath, Leicester and Northampton before you've got as many marquee class players counting towards the cap as Saracens do.


Other Internationals:
12 Bath
12 Bristol
18 Exeter
19 Gloucester
19 Harlequins
15 Leicester
12 Northampton
17 Sale
14 Saracens
15 Wasps
Gloucester, Harlequins and Exeter stand out as having "a lot"; whilst Bath have less than most (as do Leicester and Northampton for that matter).


In terms of total squad size, only Sale stand out (as ever) in having much fewer players than everyone else, otherwise everyone is in the 40-50 range.

From that, you could argue that Leicester might well be over - but nothing like the same extent as Saracens, and probably not by enough to get into point deduction territory.
Quite honestly, from those 10 clubs, Saracens stand out from the crowd as having (way) more top level talent, and no-one particularly stands out as having more overall tallent (though Saracens are still ahead of everyone else when you combine the 2 columns)

Sarries have gone into full PR mode:

Mellsblue wrote:Sarries have gone into full PR mode:

No harm there, shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth etc

Banquo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:Sarries have gone into full PR mode:

No harm there, shouldn't look a gift horse in the mouth etc

Agreed. It’s also not as if it’s out of character ...just in a cynical mood.

Sarries have always been big on the charity side, if it's PR it's been so for a long, long time

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/51510284

Posted not for the comparison, but because it seems to me that UEFA's financial fair play system is a much better and much more sophisticated system than PRL. Take out all youth and stadium costs and make every club wash its face. That's how you provide sustainability, rather than a crude salary cap. Invest ion the stadium and grow your support and commercial side and your spending can be (justifiably) much greater than all the other clubs. Hopefully that's what the review will produce.

UEFA's fair play system ensures the small clubs can't compete. Okay they never could over the longer term but now that can't even get a 2-3 season cycle before fading back as players are sold on and not replaced

Digby wrote:Sarries have always been big on the charity side, if it's PR it's been so for a long, long time

Hence ‘not as if it’s out of character‘.

Digby wrote:UEFA's fair play system ensures the small clubs can't compete. Okay they never could over the longer term but now that can't even get a 2-3 season cycle before fading back as players are sold on and not replaced

I'd much rather that than let clubs be driven to the wall in search of a couple of years glory.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:UEFA's fair play system ensures the small clubs can't compete. Okay they never could over the longer term but now that can't even get a 2-3 season cycle before fading back as players are sold on and not replaced

I'd much rather that than let clubs be driven to the wall in search of a couple of years glory.

The liberal in me wants to let them choose for themselves. But they could at least allow them to plan over a 10-15 year cycle

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:UEFA's fair play system ensures the small clubs can't compete. Okay they never could over the longer term but now that can't even get a 2-3 season cycle before fading back as players are sold on and not replaced

I'd much rather that than let clubs be driven to the wall in search of a couple of years glory.

The football system is very broken, though. My team, Benefited, have plenty of money but no means to use it because to do so would break ffp. The only way around it is what city have done, inflated sponsorship paid by the owner.

It depends on your aim, an equal playing field, stopping clubs from going bust, or a continuation of the status quo?

Stom wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:UEFA's fair play system ensures the small clubs can't compete. Okay they never could over the longer term but now that can't even get a 2-3 season cycle before fading back as players are sold on and not replaced

I'd much rather that than let clubs be driven to the wall in search of a couple of years glory.

The football system is very broken, though. My team, Benefited, have plenty of money but no means to use it because to do so would break ffp. The only way around it is what city have done, inflated sponsorship paid by the owner.

It depends on your aim, an equal playing field, stopping clubs from going bust, or a continuation of the status quo?

Does your club have plenty of money, or does your club's owner have plenty of money, because there is a difference legally and practically. Strikes me that the football system is doing exactly what it's supposed to by stopping some rich bloke coming in and buying championships or cups until they get bored and leave saddling the club with liabilities it cannot meet.

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:UEFA's fair play system ensures the small clubs can't compete. Okay they never could over the longer term but now that can't even get a 2-3 season cycle before fading back as players are sold on and not replaced

I'd much rather that than let clubs be driven to the wall in search of a couple of years glory.

The liberal in me wants to let them choose for themselves. But they could at least allow them to plan over a 10-15 year cycle

They can plan over a 10-15 year cycle by investing in the youth teams and the stadium.

Eugene Wrayburn wrote:

Digby wrote:

Eugene Wrayburn wrote: I'd much rather that than let clubs be driven to the wall in search of a couple of years glory.

The liberal in me wants to let them choose for themselves. But they could at least allow them to plan over a 10-15 year cycle

They can plan over a 10-15 year cycle by investing in the youth teams and the stadium.

They can also try to build the revenue of the club so they can gradually spend more and more.

Though I do agree to an extent that the date on which you bring in the rules creates some unfairness to the clubs left behind and trying to compete with those that spent big beforehand. Not sure that is the main cause of football's stratification though