Moderator: moderators
He mixed the bloody Flavour Aid!Dave Cahill wrote:Listening to that right now as it happens - he's up to his neck in the Flavor Aid
In your recent Demented Mole piece, Leinster's League, you analysed the impact on Leinster's performance of having effectively qualified for the Play-off games by 1st March 2019 and the impact that had on motivating players for the final games of the League Season. I concur with that analysis and wonder what will be the impact on the Saracen's players and staff of the realisation that the games they play from 20th January until 3/4th April will all be meaningless, in terms of competition, future contracts and even their future careers. This, alongside injury to any of their England contingent, may be the most influential factors in our forthcoming encounter with themhugonaut wrote:Have been thinking a little how much Saracens have compromised the tournaments they are playing in this season.
They chose to field weakened teams in their away games against Racing [L], Munster [L+BP] and Ospreys [W] in order to concentrate on their league campaign.
Their Premiership season commenced 19 October, and their first points deduction was announced on 5 November. They played three matches before the sanction [under condition one, i.e. just a normal season] and five under the first sanction [condition two, having to make up loads of points to stay up] and now will play out the rest of the league under a second sanction [condition three, which is automatic relegation and thus no reason to compete].
They've played 8 games in the league at this stage, and there are 12 teams in the league, so there are some teams who haven't played Saracens either home or away yet. Those teams will now only play against a demotivated team. Exeter had to sweat blood to get a home win against that financially doped Sarries outfit who were fighting for their lives. It's hardly a level playing field.
Absolute nonsense from Venter claiming they are only £500K over the cap. They're being relegated over that amount? That must be how much they've added to their wage bill just this season with Daly etc. I'd love to know how much they were paying in salaries excluding the co-investments.Dave Cahill wrote:Listening to that right now as it happens - he's up to his neck in the Flavor Aid
The only caveat... The offer apparently was to open the books AND give back their titles.Dave Cahill wrote:It really is - I'd say, based it must be said on supposition and lot of adding 2+2, that Saracens are wildly over the Salary Cap, far more than the 2million that is being posited. If they were 'only' the 2 mill that everyone reckons, then they wouldn't have a problem with an audit - but the situation where they are willing to take any punishment over opening their books?
Is it not more likely that the audit would reveal illegality and in essence the amount which they were over matters not?Dave Cahill wrote:It really is - I'd say, based it must be said on supposition and lot of adding 2+2, that Saracens are wildly over the Salary Cap, far more than the 2million that is being posited. If they were 'only' the 2 mill that everyone reckons, then they wouldn't have a problem with an audit - but the situation where they are willing to take any punishment over opening their books?
If there is a suggestion of illegality should the authorities (law or revenue) be asking questions.Peg Leg wrote:Is it not more likely that the audit would reveal illegality and in essence the amount which they were over matters not?Dave Cahill wrote:It really is - I'd say, based it must be said on supposition and lot of adding 2+2, that Saracens are wildly over the Salary Cap, far more than the 2million that is being posited. If they were 'only' the 2 mill that everyone reckons, then they wouldn't have a problem with an audit - but the situation where they are willing to take any punishment over opening their books?
I think the amount by which they were over matters a lot. Quins (I think) were fined a few seasons back because they were over the limit by a 'relatively' small amount - I think it was under £100,000. It was accepted the excess was inadvertent - they paid their fine and moved on. (Say) £70,000 is 1% of a salary cap of £7,000,000.Peg Leg wrote:Is it not more likely that the audit would reveal illegality and in essence the amount which they were over matters not?Dave Cahill wrote:It really is - I'd say, based it must be said on supposition and lot of adding 2+2, that Saracens are wildly over the Salary Cap, far more than the 2million that is being posited. If they were 'only' the 2 mill that everyone reckons, then they wouldn't have a problem with an audit - but the situation where they are willing to take any punishment over opening their books?
Breaking the salary cap rules is not illegal to the extent it may warrant criminal investigation. Its a contractual matter between competing clubs and the organisers of a competition. As long as Saracens (and their players) paid their taxes then there is no reason for the Revenue authorities to investigate.Oldschool wrote:If there is a suggestion of illegality should the authorities (law or revenue) be asking questions.Peg Leg wrote:Is it not more likely that the audit would reveal illegality and in essence the amount which they were over matters not?Dave Cahill wrote:It really is - I'd say, based it must be said on supposition and lot of adding 2+2, that Saracens are wildly over the Salary Cap, far more than the 2million that is being posited. If they were 'only' the 2 mill that everyone reckons, then they wouldn't have a problem with an audit - but the situation where they are willing to take any punishment over opening their books?
I agree with you regarding the mater of how much, but I understood that they received the maximum fine and penalty available to the PRL, hence my comment that it probably doesn't matter if they are unable to increase the fine.Lar wrote:I think the amount by which they were over matters a lot. Quins (I think) were fined a few seasons back because they were over the limit by a 'relatively' small amount - I think it was under £100,000. It was accepted the excess was inadvertent - they paid their fine and moved on. (Say) £70,000 is 1% of a salary cap of £7,000,000.Peg Leg wrote:Is it not more likely that the audit would reveal illegality and in essence the amount which they were over matters not?Dave Cahill wrote:It really is - I'd say, based it must be said on supposition and lot of adding 2+2, that Saracens are wildly over the Salary Cap, far more than the 2million that is being posited. If they were 'only' the 2 mill that everyone reckons, then they wouldn't have a problem with an audit - but the situation where they are willing to take any punishment over opening their books?
Saracens were at least £2mill over the cap and therefore almost 30% over it, possibly even more. That is not inadvertent, that is deliberately flouting the rules. I think they would have had a problem with a further audit because it may have shown that they were in truth making no effort to fix the issue (or only tinkering with trying to fix it). Relegation being accepted may actually assist them in solving the issue. A lot of players won't want to be playing championship Rugby next season and will either seek moves away or loan deals. None of the England internationals in their squad will feel that championship rugby will prepare them for the 6N or enhance their chances of Lions selection. Will Eddie Jones want to pick even proven internationals if they are playing a lower grade rugby for an entire season?
I don't believe that relegation will automatically mean they will not lose their AP/GP titles. However if a further audit was to be as scathing as it may have had the potential to be then it may only have increased the calls for the their titles to be removed retrospectively. (I am not sure the PRL has the power to do this by the way).
True, but that would be revealed in a forensic audit, you would suspect.Lar wrote:Breaking the salary cap rules is not illegal to the extent it may warrant criminal investigation. Its a contractual matter between competing clubs and the organisers of a competition. As long as Saracens (and their players) paid their taxes then there is no reason for the Revenue authorities to investigate.Oldschool wrote:If there is a suggestion of illegality should the authorities (law or revenue) be asking questions.Peg Leg wrote:Is it not more likely that the audit would reveal illegality and in essence the amount which they were over matters not?
It's not. But perhaps a full audit would reveal the extent of how they have broke the salary cap and if they were at all creative with their taxes which HMRC would likely be very interested in. Any tax issues (for example) may not be directly related to the salary cap but may be shown up because of it.Lar wrote:Oldschool wrote:Breaking the salary cap rules is not illegal to the extent it may warrant criminal investigation. Its a contractual matter between competing clubs and the organisers of a competition. As long as Saracens (and their players) paid their taxes then there is no reason for the Revenue authorities to investigate.Peg Leg wrote: If there is a suggestion of illegality should the authorities (law or revenue) be asking questions.
Is there a reliable source for that second condition about handing the titles back? I've heard no one else mention it but Saracens apologists are grasping at it as a reason why the club would just accept relegation. Maintain the legacy of the club and two fingers to the rest having done nothing but care too much.MylesNaGapoleen wrote:The metro in london is reporting today that Salarysins could have avoided automatic relegation if they opened their books to an independent auditor AND return the premiership trophies won.
HMRC could choose to audit Saracens and the players any time they want. They don't have much of a threshold required to do it.kermischocolate wrote: It's not. But perhaps a full audit would reveal the extent of how they have broke the salary cap and if they were at all creative with their taxes which HMRC would likely be very interested in. Any tax issues (for example) may not be directly related to the salary cap but may be shown up because of it.
Monye on BBC 5 rugby union weeklyLogorrhea wrote:Is there a reliable source for that second condition about handing the titles back? I've heard no one else mention it but Saracens apologists are grasping at it as a reason why the club would just accept relegation. Maintain the legacy of the club and two fingers to the rest having done nothing but care too much.MylesNaGapoleen wrote:The metro in london is reporting today that Salarysins could have avoided automatic relegation if they opened their books to an independent auditor AND return the premiership trophies won.
From on a piece by Owen Slot and Alex Lowe in Saturdays TimesLogorrhea wrote:Is there a reliable source for that second condition about handing the titles back? I've heard no one else mention it but Saracens apologists are grasping at it as a reason why the club would just accept relegation. Maintain the legacy of the club and two fingers to the rest having done nothing but care too much.MylesNaGapoleen wrote:The metro in london is reporting today that Salarysins could have avoided automatic relegation if they opened their books to an independent auditor AND return the premiership trophies won.
The prospect of relegation was not one that had been seriously considered by the other clubs until the Premiership Rugby board meeting on Tuesday.
Before then, Saracens had been set a series of conditions that had to be met if the club were to be considered compliant this season. These included:
•Reducing their wage bill by £2 million by the end of the month.
•Returning the trophies for winning the Premiership in 2018 and 2019.
•Nigel Wray’s resignation as chairman.
•The appointment of a new independent chairman.
The change in chairman has occurred but Saracens have been unable to comply with other demands.
I know. But why would they unless they had a specific reason to? I just wonder what else is revealed by the books that it needs to be hidden?FLIP wrote:HMRC could choose to audit Saracens and the players any time they want. They don't have much of a threshold required to do it.kermischocolate wrote: It's not. But perhaps a full audit would reveal the extent of how they have broke the salary cap and if they were at all creative with their taxes which HMRC would likely be very interested in. Any tax issues (for example) may not be directly related to the salary cap but may be shown up because of it.
