Saracens sanction
Re: Saracens sanction
Steckers, I am allowed to see things differently to you. I'm not alone in having my view of this situation.
Cherchez la truffe
Posts: 3138
Posts: 3138
- colinboag
- Hall of Famer
Re: Saracens sanction
GS, a few Qs asked in peace...
1. How do you propose player investments (whilst still playing) are managed outside of the cap and prevent sugar daddy teams buying success/other teams falling to the wayside?
2. What is the appropriate punishment for sarries?
3. what mitigation for sarries not being open about their co-investments if not hidden intentionally?
4. Do you believe it's jealousy of other teams/fans (as Jones states in article and on social media) or grievance that a team has bent the rules?
1. How do you propose player investments (whilst still playing) are managed outside of the cap and prevent sugar daddy teams buying success/other teams falling to the wayside?
2. What is the appropriate punishment for sarries?
3. what mitigation for sarries not being open about their co-investments if not hidden intentionally?
4. Do you believe it's jealousy of other teams/fans (as Jones states in article and on social media) or grievance that a team has bent the rules?
Posts: 753
- NorthernShedHead
- On the board
Re: Saracens sanction
I'd hope my record on SW shows that I'm happy to express my opinion and will always consider others with respect.
Anyway, Stephen Jones piece in incredibly irresponsible piece of journalism (in my opinion) of course. Generally, he is very good and I've seen him speak before which I enjoyed. But he has missed the point.
To accuse others of jealousy is pathetic.
If anyone really believes this is an 'administrative error' - they are STUPID. Plain and simple.
SJ seems to make lots of observations about why Saracens have enjoyed success - probably accurately - but they still cheated. If it were simply down to this - why cheat at all?
Look, most would probably agree that Lance Armstrong would have still won all his trophies had everyone been clean. Irrelevant, he broke the rules and suffered the consequence. So should Saracens.
When it comes to the Salary Cap - I don't really look at it as a rule that is imposed on the clubs. The foundation of it is an agreement between the clubs for the good of the game. So as Rob Baxter said, the moment you start looking for loopholes in it, then you are contravening the spirit of the agreement.
Anyway, Stephen Jones piece in incredibly irresponsible piece of journalism (in my opinion) of course. Generally, he is very good and I've seen him speak before which I enjoyed. But he has missed the point.
To accuse others of jealousy is pathetic.
If anyone really believes this is an 'administrative error' - they are STUPID. Plain and simple.
SJ seems to make lots of observations about why Saracens have enjoyed success - probably accurately - but they still cheated. If it were simply down to this - why cheat at all?
Look, most would probably agree that Lance Armstrong would have still won all his trophies had everyone been clean. Irrelevant, he broke the rules and suffered the consequence. So should Saracens.
When it comes to the Salary Cap - I don't really look at it as a rule that is imposed on the clubs. The foundation of it is an agreement between the clubs for the good of the game. So as Rob Baxter said, the moment you start looking for loopholes in it, then you are contravening the spirit of the agreement.
Posts: 3332
- steckers
- Hall of Famer
Re: Saracens sanction
Only point I’d make is the team of expert investigators that know and understand all the rules/laws of the cap and have seen all the evidence ( I’m guessing none of us have) stated they are satisfied no deliberate attempt to cheat the cap and this was down to an administration error. If that is their findings then I think the punishment is harsh. I don’t understand why they would say that if they found them to have deliberately cheated. Something doesn’t add up to me.
Posts: 2106
- Not1eyed
- Hall of Famer
Re: Saracens sanction
Sorry but I just dont get this "we forgot to tell the salary manager" bleep, they looked for a way to attract players to the club, of course being successful helped a lot but offering these co investments did as well and having being caught out very recently any one with any sense would have sought out advice from the salary manager to check it was all above board. They set out to get round the cap IMVHO I think the reason they havent been accused of deliberately breaking the rules is so the other clubs dont demand they are chucked out of the league altogether and I expect PRL hoped they would accept the punishment and sort themselves out
Plenty of athletes have been banned after taking presecrition drugs at levels not approved by their various controlling bodies, they are meant to get approval before using them, of course Sarries think they are above being checked, not once has anyone got off a speeding fine by claiming ignorance or saying they didnt see the sign etc etc .
I cant believe that anyone can support what they have done, if all clubs go down this route then it can only result in many clubs going out of business which is certainly not going to help the game as a whole or the England team .
I guess its an example of whats wrong in modern life , win at all costs and cheating is fine and when caught blame everyone else and dont accept responsibility,
Plenty of athletes have been banned after taking presecrition drugs at levels not approved by their various controlling bodies, they are meant to get approval before using them, of course Sarries think they are above being checked, not once has anyone got off a speeding fine by claiming ignorance or saying they didnt see the sign etc etc .
I cant believe that anyone can support what they have done, if all clubs go down this route then it can only result in many clubs going out of business which is certainly not going to help the game as a whole or the England team .
I guess its an example of whats wrong in modern life , win at all costs and cheating is fine and when caught blame everyone else and dont accept responsibility,
Posts: 1693
- robs1
- Hall of Famer
Re: Saracens sanction
Northern Shedhead, here goes:
1. How do you propose player investments (whilst still playing) are managed outside of the cap and prevent sugar daddy teams buying success/other teams falling to the wayside?
This is for bigger brains than mine, but co-investments have to be the way forward - anything that helps players establish themselves after their careers are over is good in my book. Not beyond the wit of man to come up with some rules that stick...although it has defeated PRL for years
2. What is the appropriate punishment for sarries?
a points deduction sufficient to stop them qualifying for next year's Ch Cup, plus a generous contribution to go to a rugby charity (not £5M though!)
3. what mitigation for sarries not being open about their co-investments if not hidden intentionally?
The mitigation exists: the panel accepted no intention to conceal
4. Do you believe it's jealousy of other teams/fans (as Jones states in article and on social media) or grievance that a team has bent the rules?
A bit of both: jealousy from other clubs that have sailed close to the wind but haven't had anything like the success of Sarries, plus a bit of genuine grievance stoked up by daft, hysterical reaction on social media.
steckers, do you really think that SJ expressing a view that is different to yours makes it 'an incredibly irresponsible piece of journalism'? I think I've read some irresponsible, and potentially actionable comments on here about Nigel Wray - he won't sue, of course, because he has plenty on his plate right now, but some of the things he has been accused of are in direct contrast to the limited knowledge we have of the panel's views. I think that as well as lambasting Sarries, there ought to be a lot more pressure on PRL...it's their failure to have a proper set of rules over the years that has allowed the number of 'breaches' there have been...IMO the level of the sanction is just a smokescreen to cover their ineptitude...goodness, relying on a very young journo from the Daily mail to do their job for them! All of the co-investment stuff was in the public domain if PRL had been smart enough to just enquire at Companies House - it wasn't concealed in any way!
1. How do you propose player investments (whilst still playing) are managed outside of the cap and prevent sugar daddy teams buying success/other teams falling to the wayside?
This is for bigger brains than mine, but co-investments have to be the way forward - anything that helps players establish themselves after their careers are over is good in my book. Not beyond the wit of man to come up with some rules that stick...although it has defeated PRL for years
2. What is the appropriate punishment for sarries?
a points deduction sufficient to stop them qualifying for next year's Ch Cup, plus a generous contribution to go to a rugby charity (not £5M though!)
3. what mitigation for sarries not being open about their co-investments if not hidden intentionally?
The mitigation exists: the panel accepted no intention to conceal
4. Do you believe it's jealousy of other teams/fans (as Jones states in article and on social media) or grievance that a team has bent the rules?
A bit of both: jealousy from other clubs that have sailed close to the wind but haven't had anything like the success of Sarries, plus a bit of genuine grievance stoked up by daft, hysterical reaction on social media.
steckers, do you really think that SJ expressing a view that is different to yours makes it 'an incredibly irresponsible piece of journalism'? I think I've read some irresponsible, and potentially actionable comments on here about Nigel Wray - he won't sue, of course, because he has plenty on his plate right now, but some of the things he has been accused of are in direct contrast to the limited knowledge we have of the panel's views. I think that as well as lambasting Sarries, there ought to be a lot more pressure on PRL...it's their failure to have a proper set of rules over the years that has allowed the number of 'breaches' there have been...IMO the level of the sanction is just a smokescreen to cover their ineptitude...goodness, relying on a very young journo from the Daily mail to do their job for them! All of the co-investment stuff was in the public domain if PRL had been smart enough to just enquire at Companies House - it wasn't concealed in any way!
Cherchez la truffe
Posts: 3138
Posts: 3138
- colinboag
- Hall of Famer
Re: Saracens sanction
Glen Sannox wrote:Apparently the salary cap reg's prevent it being published. Shocking, isn't it- good old PRL!
The issue I now have is Wray and co have said the tribunal found no intention to deceive. But as the findings are confidential we only have their word for it. Given this is all about trust, that one sided view is difficult. On the bigger point however I think most folk hold that justice has to be seen to be done. It is open to PRL within the regs to publish a summary. I believe if there is ever to be any sort of resolution then there has to be more openness: it is perfectly possible for a summary of findings without detail could be published.
Another yard boys, another yard!
Posts: 535 Location: Stroud, usually
Posts: 535 Location: Stroud, usually
- Up the jumper
- Hero in the making
Re: Saracens sanction
Glen Sannox wrote:Northern Shedhead, here goes:
1. How do you propose player investments (whilst still playing) are managed outside of the cap and prevent sugar daddy teams buying success/other teams falling to the wayside?
This is for bigger brains than mine, but co-investments have to be the way forward - anything that helps players establish themselves after their careers are over is good in my book. Not beyond the wit of man to come up with some rules that stick...although it has defeated PRL for years
The mitigation exists: the panel accepted no intention to conceal
4. Do you believe it's jealousy of other teams/fans (as Jones states in article and on social media) or grievance that a team has bent the rules?
A bit of both: jealousy from other clubs that have sailed close to the wind but haven't had anything like the success of Sarries, plus a bit of genuine grievance stoked up by daft, hysterical reaction on social media.
steckers, do you really think that SJ expressing a view that is different to yours makes it 'an incredibly irresponsible piece of journalism'? I think I've read some irresponsible, and potentially actionable comments on here about Nigel Wray - he won't sue, of course, because he has plenty on his plate right now, but some of the things he has been accused of are in direct contrast to the limited knowledge we have of the panel's views. I think that as well as lambasting Sarries, there ought to be a lot more pressure on PRL...it's their failure to have a proper set of rules over the years that has allowed the number of 'breaches' there have been...IMO the level of the sanction is just a smokescreen to cover their ineptitude...goodness, relying on a very young journo from the Daily mail to do their job for them! All of the co-investment stuff was in the public domain if PRL had been smart enough to just enquire at Companies House - it wasn't concealed in any way!
Why do players need to be helped "to establish" themselves after rugby, those invloved in this cheating are on enormous salaries compared to most people and even after buying a decent house will have a lot of spare cash to invest in a business, they are allowed education expenses etc outside the cap now and Im sure no one would worry if the clubs employed a business advisor to give them investment advice. What other business area has to invest in the future of their employees after leaving their job ?
Posts: 1693
- robs1
- Hall of Famer
Re: Saracens sanction
In most other businesses their employees don't retire in their 20's or early 30s. Yes these guys are on big salaries, but they need to do something with the rest of their lives ...there have been too many instances of players suffering mental health issues after their careers are over. What I would like to see is players having a proper route forward for the rest of their lives after rugby, and I think it's just a responsible thing for their employers to help with that (within the rules, which should be changed so that it can happen)
Cherchez la truffe
Posts: 3138
Posts: 3138
- colinboag
- Hall of Famer