RugbyRebels

Mellsblue wrote:Interesting thread:

Makes me think that while there should be a cap to protect clubs from huge wage bills, debts and owners who walk away, off the field owners and investors should be able to do as they please. If Nigel Wray wants to pay Owen Farrell 80k to be his golf caddie for the day then let him, as long as the club itself is protected.

I suppose it depends what you want the salary cap to achieve. If it’s to prevent a club going bust, or similar, then let owners, investors etc spend their own money however they like. If the aim is to create a level playing field/competitive league from top to bottom, which is the present situation, then that can’t be allowed to happen.

Mellsblue wrote:I suppose it depends what you want the salary cap to achieve. If it’s to prevent a club going bust, or similar, then let owners, investors etc spend their own money however they like. If the aim is to create a level playing field/competitive league from top to bottom, which is the present situation, then that can’t be allowed to happen.

I just think with any salary cap there has to be a large element of good will and common purpose. If most of the owners, as per that twitter thread, are bending/breaking the rules already then we may as well relax the rules and see where it takes us.

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I suppose it depends what you want the salary cap to achieve. If it’s to prevent a club going bust, or similar, then let owners, investors etc spend their own money however they like. If the aim is to create a level playing field/competitive league from top to bottom, which is the present situation, then that can’t be allowed to happen.

I just think with any salary cap there has to be a large element of good will and common purpose. If most of the owners, as per that twitter thread, are bending/breaking the rules already then we may as well relax the rules and see where it takes us.

Or you could give the club(s) a meaningful sanction and show that your rules and regs are credible. It’s a slippery slope to just let people off without any punishment. They will just break the next set of rules put in place.

Mellsblue wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I suppose it depends what you want the salary cap to achieve. If it’s to prevent a club going bust, or similar, then let owners, investors etc spend their own money however they like. If the aim is to create a level playing field/competitive league from top to bottom, which is the present situation, then that can’t be allowed to happen.

I just think with any salary cap there has to be a large element of good will and common purpose. If most of the owners, as per that twitter thread, are bending/breaking the rules already then we may as well relax the rules and see where it takes us.

Or you could give the club(s) a meaningful sanction and show that your rules and regs are credible. It’s a slippery slope to just let people off without any punishment. They will just break the next set of rules put in place.

Exactly. If the arbiter of the rules is the same entity who could be punished by rule breaches...well that's just insanity.

The whole point is that we don't get a situation where 1 club is super strong. When a club fails, it should be all about their own incompetence (see Quins last year, Tigers this, Saints last year, etc.)

Mellsblue wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I suppose it depends what you want the salary cap to achieve. If it’s to prevent a club going bust, or similar, then let owners, investors etc spend their own money however they like. If the aim is to create a level playing field/competitive league from top to bottom, which is the present situation, then that can’t be allowed to happen.

I just think with any salary cap there has to be a large element of good will and common purpose. If most of the owners, as per that twitter thread, are bending/breaking the rules already then we may as well relax the rules and see where it takes us.

Or you could give the club(s) a meaningful sanction and show that your rules and regs are credible. It’s a slippery slope to just let people off without any punishment. They will just break the next set of rules put in place.

But how? Last time they looked into it Sarries made clear they would see them in court to show the cap isn't legal. And tbh it seems much easier for clubs to get better at hiding deals supposedly outside the club for what are frankly benefits in kind than to pursue them

The only ways I can see enforcing a cap is by having all players centrally contracted and players assigned to clubs by that central body. Or each season we have an auction like IPL for say 33% of registered players and they must sign to the highest bidding club and those auction bids be summed such they cannot breach the cap

BTW, how the hell can any rule set in place by the governing body of a competition - so long as that rule is not discriminating against an individual - be proved illegal? It's their competition, they can do what they bloody well like.

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Timbo wrote:
I just think with any salary cap there has to be a large element of good will and common purpose. If most of the owners, as per that twitter thread, are bending/breaking the rules already then we may as well relax the rules and see where it takes us.

Or you could give the club(s) a meaningful sanction and show that your rules and regs are credible. It’s a slippery slope to just let people off without any punishment. They will just break the next set of rules put in place.

But how? Last time they looked into it Sarries made clear they would see them in court to show the cap isn't legal. And tbh it seems much easier for clubs to get better at hiding deals supposedly outside the club for what are frankly benefits in kind than to pursue them

Don’t know. It’s not my job. What sanctions are allowed for, if any?

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I suppose it depends what you want the salary cap to achieve. If it’s to prevent a club going bust, or similar, then let owners, investors etc spend their own money however they like. If the aim is to create a level playing field/competitive league from top to bottom, which is the present situation, then that can’t be allowed to happen.

I just think with any salary cap there has to be a large element of good will and common purpose. If most of the owners, as per that twitter thread, are bending/breaking the rules already then we may as well relax the rules and see where it takes us.

My cynical side thinks this might be exactly what's happening with this. With such obviously named shell companies making a mockery of the idea of salary seemingly passing directly from club to player, might this be the first step in saying "Well it can't be enforced so we might as well just sack the whole thing off?" Salary cap goes, the clubs with big money backers throw a shit ton of cash at their clubs, and establish a Super 4 at the top of the league of those clubs engaging in a financial arms race, and everyone else can go fuck themselves if they want to live more within their means.

Peej wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:I suppose it depends what you want the salary cap to achieve. If it’s to prevent a club going bust, or similar, then let owners, investors etc spend their own money however they like. If the aim is to create a level playing field/competitive league from top to bottom, which is the present situation, then that can’t be allowed to happen.

I just think with any salary cap there has to be a large element of good will and common purpose. If most of the owners, as per that twitter thread, are bending/breaking the rules already then we may as well relax the rules and see where it takes us.

My cynical side thinks this might be exactly what's happening with this. With such obviously named shell companies making a mockery of the idea of salary seemingly passing directly from club to player, might this be the first step in saying "Well it can't be enforced so we might as well just sack the whole thing off?" Salary cap goes, the clubs with big money backers throw a shit ton of cash at their clubs, and establish a Super 4 at the top of the league of those clubs engaging in a financial arms race, and everyone else can go fuck themselves if they want to live more within their means.

It’s all leading to a two tier European league between the financial big boys:
Sarries
Exeter
Bristol
Bath
Munster
Leinster
Ulster
Racing
Montpellier
Clermont
Toulon
Toulouse
Scarlets/Ospreys debacle team
Cardiff
Glasgow
Edinburgh
Sharks
Bulls

I’d be happy if the league introduced strict rules around eqp and homegrown numbers, a strict salary cap in terms of wages the club is liable for (easy to track and follow) and then let owners pay players off the field however they want. It’s a short career, if some multi-millionaire wants to pay Billy Vunipola 200k our of his own pocket for mowing his lawn why are we saying that he shouldn’t be allowed to take that money?

Timbo wrote:I’d be happy if the league introduced strict rules around eqp and homegrown numbers, a strict salary cap in terms of wages the club is liable for (easy to track and follow) and then let owners pay players off the field however they want. It’s a short career, if some multi-millionaire wants to pay Billy Vunipola 200k our of his own pocket for mowing his lawn why are we saying that he shouldn’t be allowed to take that money?

Because it means 3-4 clubs can stockpile all the talent...You get a situation where half the England team are at one club and everyone else is struggling to get a team together of a high enough standard...oh wait...

Stom wrote:

Timbo wrote:I’d be happy if the league introduced strict rules around eqp and homegrown numbers, a strict salary cap in terms of wages the club is liable for (easy to track and follow) and then let owners pay players off the field however they want. It’s a short career, if some multi-millionaire wants to pay Billy Vunipola 200k our of his own pocket for mowing his lawn why are we saying that he shouldn’t be allowed to take that money?

Because it means 3-4 clubs can stockpile all the talent...You get a situation where half the England team are at one club and everyone else is struggling to get a team together of a high enough standard...oh wait...

Up until recently weren’t half the England team at Quins?

But seriously, there’s no reason why other clubs can’t get outside investment. Be creative. The scenario I’m talking about is basically what happens in France and that league is fiercely competitive.

Timbo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Timbo wrote:I’d be happy if the league introduced strict rules around eqp and homegrown numbers, a strict salary cap in terms of wages the club is liable for (easy to track and follow) and then let owners pay players off the field however they want. It’s a short career, if some multi-millionaire wants to pay Billy Vunipola 200k our of his own pocket for mowing his lawn why are we saying that he shouldn’t be allowed to take that money?

Because it means 3-4 clubs can stockpile all the talent...You get a situation where half the England team are at one club and everyone else is struggling to get a team together of a high enough standard...oh wait...

Up until recently weren’t half the England team at Quins?

But seriously, there’s no reason why other clubs can’t get outside investment. Be creative. The scenario I’m talking about is basically what happens in France and that league is fiercely competitive.

That’s all good. I’ve no strong feelings about a salary cap in any guise or no salary cap at all, but there was one and if someone has broken the rules they should be punished.
If you want rules around EQ and home grown players what is to stop a club just threatening to take PRL to court to say the rule is illegal if, for example, they want to sign Beudan Barrett but are already at the limit of foreign players. That scenario doesn’t much different to this?

I honestly believe the salary cap keeps the league as competitive as it is - and I think where clubs have been allowed to bend and break the rules has distended this somewhat in the last three seasons at least and made the league less entertaining. I want us to hold on to it at all costs

Mellsblue wrote:

Timbo wrote:

Stom wrote:
Because it means 3-4 clubs can stockpile all the talent...You get a situation where half the England team are at one club and everyone else is struggling to get a team together of a high enough standard...oh wait...

Up until recently weren’t half the England team at Quins?

But seriously, there’s no reason why other clubs can’t get outside investment. Be creative. The scenario I’m talking about is basically what happens in France and that league is fiercely competitive.

That’s all good. I’ve no strong feelings about a salary cap in any guise or no salary cap at all, but there was one and if someone has broken the rules they should be punished.
If you want rules around EQ and home grown players what is to stop a club just threatening to take PRL to court to say the rule is illegal if, for example, they want to sign Beudan Barrett but are already at the limit of foreign players. That scenario doesn’t much different to this?

Well if it was a problem for some owners then you can keep it as it is, where clubs are incentivised with RFU cash for keeping up eqp numbers.

Like you, i’m pretty easy-breezey about a cap or not, but if most clubs are either breaking the rules or looking for ways to circumvent them I don’t really see the point in it. Bringing in harsher and enforceable punishments is great, but I expect all that would happen is that clubs would get slightly more sophisticated about how they ‘hide’ payments.

Most of the 'stockpile of talent' at Saracens that plays for England came through the academy. For the rest, their performance significantly improved when they were coached by Saracens.
Long before the current success at Saracens, the club was spending more money and paying greater attention to its academy than other Premiership clubs. This was recognised by the authorities and Saracens won a string of awards for their efforts. The 'conveyor belt' continues to this day with a third to a half of players in the first team coming through the academy, many of whom are in the England training setup.
A whole string of coaches have been poached from Saracens by the RFU over the years and some, like Farrell and Gustard, have benefitted other clubs and national teams.
Maybe the other Premiership clubs should raise their coaching game?

Or maybe it helps when you can buy the best players, or those who have shown great potential. Whilst also seemingly keeping almost every half decent academy player just in case they blossom too.

It also helps when you can so consistently so well fund the academy, but there’s no obvious solution when every successful team is one of the big spenders or is a flash in the pan

CONVEX HULL wrote:Most of the 'stockpile of talent' at Saracens that plays for England came through the academy. For the rest, their performance significantly improved when they were coached by Saracens.
Long before the current success at Saracens, the club was spending more money and paying greater attention to its academy than other Premiership clubs. This was recognised by the authorities and Saracens won a string of awards for their efforts. The 'conveyor belt' continues to this day with a third to a half of players in the first team coming through the academy, many of whom are in the England training setup.
A whole string of coaches have been poached from Saracens by the RFU over the years and some, like Farrell and Gustard, have benefitted other clubs and national teams.
Maybe the other Premiership clubs should raise their coaching game?

And what's keeping it at Sarries, as they improve and gain more and more lucrative contracts, is what's under scrutiny. Because what Sarries say about getting 1.2 million for producing Academy players is bollocks given the maximum any club can have is £600k

They likely get £600k or so for internationals.

However, as I've said, the cap is actually £6.4m. The £7m figure includes the £600k allowance for home grown. Then Owen Slots figures no longer bring Sarries under the cap.

Raggs wrote:They likely get £600k or so for internationals.

Huh?

International allowance. In eps = £40k allowance. Each week with England = £5k. Upto £80k a player i believe. Non English internationals get £10k a game.

Which Tyler wrote:

Raggs wrote:They likely get £600k or so for internationals.

Huh?

One of the reasons Quins were over the cap, allegedly. Too close to the line and the dropping of Brown and then Care caused problems.