Are Saracens about to get automatically relegated?

[Scrumhead]

This seems unlikely but RugbyPass seem pretty confident:

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/saracens ... -continue/

[Puja]

This seems unlikely but RugbyPass seem pretty confident:

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/saracens ... -continue/

Jesus. Baggsie Itoje and George.

Puja

[Adam_P]

The last weeks have highlighted what a lying git Wray was. Adament that they were compliant this season, it was all a mistake, blah blah blah. No apology. Shame for the fans and playing group, but they can all thank Wray for everything they get. Wray's poor approach has been further highlighted by the different tone as soon as Golding has taken over

[Stom]

This seems unlikely but RugbyPass seem pretty confident:

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/saracens ... -continue/

Jesus. Baggsie Itoje and George.

Puja

Bugger that, I want them at Quins!

Hell, we'd even take them on a season's loan if they wanted :p

[Digby]

It was never really addressed how they'd come back down under the cap. The only way out now is the players as a whole taking a massive cut in salary for at least the remainder of this season, time to find out what that culture is really about perhaps.

If they're still cheating, and it's hard to see how they're not then they deserve to go down, or at the vey least nobody deserves to relegate ahead of them

[Raggs]

You lot can have Itoje and George, Wasps will have Billy and Mako.

[Puja]

It seems like a very odd thing to do. Of course Saracens couldn't get under the cap this season. How would they? This staggered punishment seems bizarre - hitting them for a second go for the same offence when there was no way to change it at all.

Puja

[Digby]

Sarries might well have given undertakings they'd do just that, get under the cap. Of course they might have to accidentally scrap relegation this season now, the clubs would hate that, damn it all!

[Scrumhead]

It seems like a very odd thing to do. Of course Saracens couldn't get under the cap this season. How would they? This staggered punishment seems bizarre - hitting them for a second go for the same offence when there was no way to change it at all.

Puja

Yeah - that’s exactly how I feel about it,

I’m clearly no fan of Saracens, but this feels like a completely illogical punishment.

[Danno]

This seems unlikely but RugbyPass seem pretty confident:

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/saracens ... -continue/

Jesus. Baggsie Itoje and George.

Puja

Bugger that, I want them at Quins!

Hell, we'd even take them on a season's loan if they wanted :p

This.

All joking aside, what the hell did they think might happen? They couldn't have been under more scrutiny without buying a majority stake in a blood capsule manufacturer. It was time to play by the rules by whatever means necessary - including negotiation and transparency with the powers that be to manage their situation through the rest of the season - and they fucked it.

[Scrumhead]

Now being reported on the BBC site (https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/51143657) which is more worrying considering they rarely report anything that isn’t more or less a certainty.

I’m also worried about how this could affect a significant number of key players for England going in to the 6N.

[Cameo]

It seems like a very odd thing to do. Of course Saracens couldn't get under the cap this season. How would they? This staggered punishment seems bizarre - hitting them for a second go for the same offence when there was no way to change it at all.

Puja

Yeah - that’s exactly how I feel about it,

I’m clearly no fan of Saracens, but this feels like a completely illogical punishment.

My understanding is that the original punishment was on the basis that Saracens said they would comply this season. If Saracens now say they can't comply after all, it makes sense that the punishment would be increased.

Does seem a strange undertaking to give though if you are not going to immediately let some players leave.

[Puja]

It seems like a very odd thing to do. Of course Saracens couldn't get under the cap this season. How would they? This staggered punishment seems bizarre - hitting them for a second go for the same offence when there was no way to change it at all.

Puja

Yeah - that’s exactly how I feel about it,

I’m clearly no fan of Saracens, but this feels like a completely illogical punishment.

My understanding is that the original punishment was on the basis that Saracens said they would comply this season. If Saracens now say they can't comply after all, it makes sense that the punishment would be increased.

Does seem a strange undertaking to give though if you are not going to immediately let some players leave.

It's the bit in the BBC article that gets me: "Furthermore, any money paid as compensation to players for cutting short contracts would also be included in the wage bill."

How the hell are they supposed to reduce their wage bill without letting players go and paying them compensation which will then increase their wage bill? I'm not a Saracens fan (and gods know that I wouldn't mind Leicester having immunity from relegation this season!), but this doesn't feel apt or appropriate. It should either have been included in the first punishment or, worst case, carried as a points deduction next year. You can't relegate them for failing to do the impossible.

Puja

[Peej]

If they release players who haven't made a first team appearance then - it has been reported - those wages wouldn't count towards the cap. But I don't see how that works given that a termination of contract surely has some kind of pay off attached?

[cashead]

Original tweet got deleted. Take it for what it's worth.

[Mikey Brown]

Haha.

[Cameo]

Yeah - that’s exactly how I feel about it,

I’m clearly no fan of Saracens, but this feels like a completely illogical punishment.

My understanding is that the original punishment was on the basis that Saracens said they would comply this season. If Saracens now say they can't comply after all, it makes sense that the punishment would be increased.

Does seem a strange undertaking to give though if you are not going to immediately let some players leave.

It's the bit in the BBC article that gets me: "Furthermore, any money paid as compensation to players for cutting short contracts would also be included in the wage bill."

How the hell are they supposed to reduce their wage bill without letting players go and paying them compensation which will then increase their wage bill? I'm not a Saracens fan (and gods know that I wouldn't mind Leicester having immunity from relegation this season!), but this doesn't feel apt or appropriate. It should either have been included in the first punishment or, worst case, carried as a points deduction next year. You can't relegate them for failing to do the impossible.

Puja

The question is whether Sarries said they would do it. If Sarries escaped a harsher punishment because they said they would do the impossible, then it doesn't seem outrageous to hold them to account when they fail.

Not saying they should have been forced to but, if they really wanted to make this year's cap, they could have. They could have told all (or some high earners) their players that they would likely be released as soon as legally possible but, if they found a new club, Sarries would give them a payoff of half their wages til the end of the season. Even with a big payoff, offloading 5-10 players that way would surely bring them under the cap.

[twitchy]

Is this not really bad for the national team? Surely most clubs in the prem are at their wage caps. So a large contingent of supposed internationals are either going to have to play in the championship or go to france? A load of young players that should be getting prem experience are going to be in the championship.

[Digby]

It is what it is for the national team, bar the RFU might want to finally consider if a salary cheater can be in the squad and be there as captain. Not much to be said for the RFU supposed values that Sarries are standing for with their rampant cheating

[fivepointer]

"The question is whether Sarries said they would do it. If Sarries escaped a harsher punishment because they said they would do the impossible, then it doesn't seem outrageous to hold them to account when they fail"

My position.

The club must have known they had to make every possible effort to significantly reduce the wage bill this season.

I know the Premiership clubs want to keep the full details of the punishment (and all others) under wraps, but i cannot help feeling that full disclosure would have helped everyone to understand exactly what was unearthed, why the panel came to the conclusions they did, and what obligations Saracens were under to get under the cap.

[Scrumhead]

Is this not really bad for the national team? Surely most clubs in the prem are at their wage caps. So a large contingent of supposed internationals are either going to have to play in the championship or go to france? A load of young players that should be getting prem experience are going to be in the championship.

I’m worried about this too. With the start of the 6N weeks away, it’s terrible timing, but it’s also the knock-on effect of needing to find homes for a number of expensive players when most clubs won’t have space in the cap to do it.

[16th man]

Is this not really bad for the national team? Surely most clubs in the prem are at their wage caps. So a large contingent of supposed internationals are either going to have to play in the championship or go to france? A load of young players that should be getting prem experience are going to be in the championship.

I’m worried about this too. With the start of the 6N weeks away, it’s terrible timing, but it’s also the knock-on effect of needing to find homes for a number of expensive players when most clubs won’t have space in the cap to do it.

*Cough* Central contracts *cough*

[Oakboy]

I don't understand why money paid to players as compensation to leave should be considered as part of the wage bill. How do Saracens benefit unfairly in playing terms from that? Surely that compensation would enable those players to play the rest of the season for other clubs without those clubs having to pay so much - possibly the difference between keeping our internationals in our game or not.

[fivepointer]

Really good piece in what has been an impressive series on what options Saracens have (or had?)

The conclusion (on 13 Jan) was -
"In light of the above analysis, Saracens remain in a difficult position. To become compliant with the Regulation this season, the club will need to release players, reduce salaries or make use of the injury exemption. It may even need to use a combination of the three, depending on the amount by which the salary cap would otherwise be exceeded.

Saracens’ CEO, Griffiths, must now carefully balance the need for compliance with the Regulations against the need to abide by the law, to restore the club’s reputation, and to maintain squad morale. It makes for a fascinating case study – and an unenviable task"

http://rugbyandthelaw.com/2020/01/13/sa ... gulations/

[Gloskarlos]

Just found this, pretty awkward viewing...