RugbyRebels

That looks a lot like worse than just breaching the salary cap to me...

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugby ... stars.html

That does look bad from the way it's written, but the Mail could tell me the sky was blue and I'd still want to double and triple check it.

Puja

Puja wrote:That does look bad from the way it's written, but the Mail could tell me the sky was blue and I'd still want to double and triple check it.

Puja

Well indeed. But it does somewhat corroborate what most of us have thought for a while...

Against the spirit of the cap, but not actually breaching it? Are you not allowed to go into business with a shareholder of your club? And if you want to look into the specifics of that particular arrangement then you’d need that company to open its books for PRL to look at, which I don’t suppose they have any obligation to do.

I don’t know the specifics of the cap well enough to know of this is clearly breaking it, but if they’re being super dodgy then it’s the ultimate example of hiding in plain site.

As long as it's clear what they're doing, other clubs will at least be able to do the same if it's not a breach. But then only bath and Bristol have the funds to match.

Timbo wrote:Against the spirit of the cap, but not actually breaching it? Are you not allowed to go into business with a shareholder of your club? And if you want to look into the specifics of that particular arrangement then you’d need that company to open its books for PRL to look at, which I don’t suppose they have any obligation to do.

I don’t know the specifics of the cap well enough to know of this is clearly breaking it, but if they’re being super dodgy then it’s the ultimate example of hiding in plain site.

If it's a benefit in kind, then yes, it is breaching the cap. And the law if not declared...

And these definitely sound like benefits in kind...

Oh, and if it's not in the salary cap regs for some insane reason, then the regs should be rewritten immediately to include benefits in kind. I would say that I can't see a single reason why they wouldn't be included, but then I remembered how incompetent PRL, etc., can be...

Raggs wrote:As long as it's clear what they're doing, other clubs will at least be able to do the same if it's not a breach. But then only bath and Bristol have the funds to match.

I suspect most clubs could find either ways around the cap, or ways to break it without being caught. I heard an interview with Simon Orange where he talked about how easy it would be for him to set up companies for Sale’s players to funnel them extra cash.

I’ve thought for a long time that they should just allow any off field income. It’s so hard to police, and as long as the burden of the extra money is not on the club then I can’t see the problem. In France they allow players to earn money however they want off the field.

Stom wrote:

Timbo wrote:Against the spirit of the cap, but not actually breaching it? Are you not allowed to go into business with a shareholder of your club? And if you want to look into the specifics of that particular arrangement then you’d need that company to open its books for PRL to look at, which I don’t suppose they have any obligation to do.

I don’t know the specifics of the cap well enough to know of this is clearly breaking it, but if they’re being super dodgy then it’s the ultimate example of hiding in plain site.

If it's a benefit in kind, then yes, it is breaching the cap. And the law if not declared...

And these definitely sound like benefits in kind...

Entering into a completely separate business arrangement with your boss would be considered a benifit in kind?

Timbo wrote:

Stom wrote:

Timbo wrote:Against the spirit of the cap, but not actually breaching it? Are you not allowed to go into business with a shareholder of your club? And if you want to look into the specifics of that particular arrangement then you’d need that company to open its books for PRL to look at, which I don’t suppose they have any obligation to do.

I don’t know the specifics of the cap well enough to know of this is clearly breaking it, but if they’re being super dodgy then it’s the ultimate example of hiding in plain site.

If it's a benefit in kind, then yes, it is breaching the cap. And the law if not declared...

And these definitely sound like benefits in kind...

Entering into a completely separate business arrangement with your boss would be considered a benifit in kind?

Well, it can be...it's a bit more complicated than that, but it can be.

Thing is, would the salary cap blokey have the power to actively investigate it, or could he simply be told to feck off?

Can the player interview really go along the lines of:

"So, Elliot, we'd like to offer you a little less than what Wasps are paying you.... Incidentally, if you're living in London, and nice and close, I think, completely seperately to Saracens, and now speaking as an independent businessman, you'd be the perfect partner for a new business venture, worth £300k a year. That would of course require you to live in London though, and we'd have to talk near daily..."

As has been said - coming from the Daily Mail somewhat counts against assumed accuracy - but I'm pretty sure that that stuff is specifically breaching the salary cap.

I also can't help noticing this bit (still with caveats for coming from the Mail): Ahem

"In 2014, Sportsmail revealed that PRL had launched an inquiry into Saracens and Bath following allegations raised by a whistleblower.

PRL never confirmed the names of the clubs involved, but every side except Saracens, Bath and Leicester publicly denied their set-up was being investigated.

Later, it appeared as though only Saracens had been in the spotlight. The probe lasted nearly a year and came to an end when an out-of-court settlement was reached."

I can't say it's that shocking, except for the idea that 'Faz investments ltd' isn't a joke? Or the fact he's paid considerably more than both the Vunipolas.

Raggs wrote:Thing is, would the salary cap blokey have the power to actively investigate it, or could he simply be told to feck off?

Can the player interview really go along the lines of:

"So, Elliot, we'd like to offer you a little less than what Wasps are paying you.... Incidentally, if you're living in London, and nice and close, I think, completely seperately to Saracens, and now speaking as an independent businessman, you'd be the perfect partner for a new business venture, worth £300k a year. That would of course require you to live in London though, and we'd have to talk near daily..."

Not an expert, but doesn't this depend on the internal PRL agreement - and what measures have been put in place to punish non-compliance? There's surely got to be something where they can say "You didn't co-operate so we're just going to punish you anyway" right? Preferably points deduction or stripping of titles?

The prl would surely need to show these aren't opportunities which would have existed but for their employment as rugby players. And that's going to prove very tricky

Digby wrote:The prl would surely need to show these aren't opportunities which would have existed but for their employment as rugby players. And that's going to prove very tricky

I guess if Wray has setup companies, and made non-Sarries players directors, then there's an argument?

I think this comes under the "not against the law but not in the spirit of it" argument. Much like MPs with their expenses, very few had broken the law (partly because a law against it didn't exist), they had just acted in a morally reprehensible way. So they could say that they hadn't done anything wrong or illegal.

It's entirely unsurprising though, and I doubt they're the only club who have bought their players a house/let them leave somewhere rent free.

Thing is, the housing thing is definitely in the cap laws, I'm sure of it.

The question is, if it's Wray personally, sharing ownership, and not Saracens, then is that enough of a grey area?

HMRC view would be very interesting.

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:The prl would surely need to show these aren't opportunities which would have existed but for their employment as rugby players. And that's going to prove very tricky

I guess if Wray has setup companies, and made non-Sarries players directors, then there's an argument?

Trouble is why can't he make anyone he wants partner to his business providing the other party consents?

We may all take a view on the likelihood of wanting the genius of rugby players involved in a business, but there's a giant grey area between blatant media work on behalf of a club and acquiring roles independent of club affiliation

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:

Digby wrote:The prl would surely need to show these aren't opportunities which would have existed but for their employment as rugby players. And that's going to prove very tricky

I guess if Wray has setup companies, and made non-Sarries players directors, then there's an argument?

Trouble is why can't he make anyone he wants partner to his business providing the other party consents?

We may all take a view on the likelihood of wanting the genius of rugby players involved in a business, but there's a giant grey area between blatant media work on behalf of a club and acquiring roles independent of club affiliation

In law, he can - in rugby he can't.
If true, then it's specifically against the PRL salary cap rules.

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:

Raggs wrote:
I guess if Wray has setup companies, and made non-Sarries players directors, then there's an argument?

Trouble is why can't he make anyone he wants partner to his business providing the other party consents?

We may all take a view on the likelihood of wanting the genius of rugby players involved in a business, but there's a giant grey area between blatant media work on behalf of a club and acquiring roles independent of club affiliation

In law, he can - in rugby he can't.
If true, then it's specifically against the PRL salary cap rules.

Why can't rugby players have business interests outside rugby?

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:
Trouble is why can't he make anyone he wants partner to his business providing the other party consents?

We may all take a view on the likelihood of wanting the genius of rugby players involved in a business, but there's a giant grey area between blatant media work on behalf of a club and acquiring roles independent of club affiliation

In law, he can - in rugby he can't.
If true, then it's specifically against the PRL salary cap rules.

Why can't rugby players have business interests outside rugby?

They can

Which Tyler wrote:

Digby wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: In law, he can - in rugby he can't.
If true, then it's specifically against the PRL salary cap rules.

Why can't rugby players have business interests outside rugby?

They can

And they can with parties connected to their club, though it'd make any payment more likely to be considered as requiring reporting under the cap. But really unless anyone is stupid enough to veer away from normal independent commercial terms and/or admit they're guilty it's going to be bloody hard to prove guilt

Dodgy as hell. Who wudda thunk it?