Champions Cup 2020

[desperado]

racing look disappointed at the end. should a hit 50 against Saracens.
BP useful. munster & racing to come out of that pool.
guessing that the absence of Farrell & Co (are they still in therapy?) means that mccall is not expecting the appeal to go well and focussing on premiership survival and maybe european competition in 2021.

Not appealing apparently. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/ ... cap-breach

[D4surfer]

racing look disappointed at the end. should a hit 50 against Saracens.
BP useful. munster & racing to come out of that pool.
guessing that the absence of Farrell & Co (are they still in therapy?) means that mccall is not expecting the appeal to go well and focussing on premiership survival and maybe european competition in 2021.

Not appealing apparently. https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/ ... cap-breach

Saracens are unlikely to be in 2020/21 competition. The points deduction will most likely see them fail to qualify. The only other route in is to win this year.

[blockhead]

The fine to be shared among the other clubs!!!

[Twist]

The fine to be shared among the other clubs!!!

Really? I can’t see that anywhere. Where’d you read it?

[blockhead]

The fine to be shared among the other clubs!!!

Really? I can’t see that anywhere. Where’d you read it?

The very last line of that Guardian article.

[Laighin Break]

The fine to be shared among the other clubs!!!

Really? I can’t see that anywhere. Where’d you read it?

The very last line of that Guardian article.

The costs of the hearing are to be shared, not the fine. Still seems a bit unfair.

[FLIP]

The very last line of that Guardian article.

The costs of the hearing are to be shared, not the fine. Still seems a bit unfair.

I read it as the other clubs will get the proceeds of the fine. Who knows what the actual meaning is, what with the editorial standards of the grauniad.

[Laighin Break]

The very last line of that Guardian article.

The costs of the hearing are to be shared, not the fine. Still seems a bit unfair.

I read it as the other clubs will get the proceeds of the fine. Who knows what the actual meaning is, what with the editorial standards of the grauniad.

That makes the most sense!

[The Doc]

The very last line of that Guardian article.

The costs of the hearing are to be shared, not the fine. Still seems a bit unfair.

I read it as the other clubs will get the proceeds of the fine. Who knows what the actual meaning is, what with the editorial standards of the grauniad.

It's pretty clear - Saracens have to pay the cost of the investigation bringing the total cost to them to approx. £6mm. The proceeds of the fine is likely to be shared among the other clubs

[blockhead]

Daily Mails take on it

Once Saracens have paid the fine, PRL can plan to distribute the fine money. The regulations do not stipulate how such money is spent, leaving options open for it to be distributed to clubs or perhaps channelled into grass-roots rugby.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

The fine to be shared among the other clubs!!!

Really? I can’t see that anywhere. Where’d you read it?

The very last line of that Guardian article.

That is unpossible!

To quote the graudian as you mentioned: "Saracens can expect to pay the costs of the five-day hearing on top of the fine, which is likely to be shared by their Premiership rivals, leaving them some £6m to find."

Grossly unfair to the other clubs.

[The Doc]

That is unpossible!

To quote the graudian as you mentioned: "Saracens can expect to pay the costs of the five-day hearing on top of the fine, which is likely to be shared by their Premiership rivals, leaving them some £6m to find."

Grossly unfair to the other clubs.

You're misreading it (probably not helped by The Guardian's sub-editors) - Saracens will pay the cost of the hearing on top of the fine which will leave them having to find £6mm. This will likely be shared out among their Premiership rivals.

The other clubs get a windfall

[MylesNaGapoleen]

That is unpossible!

To quote the graudian as you mentioned: "Saracens can expect to pay the costs of the five-day hearing on top of the fine, which is likely to be shared by their Premiership rivals, leaving them some £6m to find."

Grossly unfair to the other clubs.

You're misreading it (probably not helped by The Guardian's sub-editors) - Saracens will pay the cost of the hearing on top of the fine which will leave them having to find £6mm. This will likely be shared out among their Premiership rivals.

The other clubs get a windfall

ah. thanks doc. yep, it is a little misleading.

[artaneboy]

Basically they spent a fortune to insert one letter into a URL

But “Professional” is such an important word- especially when you’re proved incompetent. It’s like the “Democratic” suffix in most Stalinist countries names pre 1989.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tomthefan]

The fine will be no bother to them since they're debt free.
They'll just borrow £6 million from Nigel which debt they'll make disappear in due course via some financial wizardry

[Twist]

I’m confused as to why they aren’t required to shed any of their overpaid players

But I’m really enjoying poor Stephen Jones’ rants against “the jealous and the defeated".

[ronk]

I’m confused as to why they aren’t required to shed any of their overpaid players

But I’m really enjoying poor Stephen Jones’ rants against “the jealous and the defeated".

The overpayment occurred through separate investment vehicle in the owners own businesses. Their contracts were compliant, the wages are ok.

[The Doc]

I’m confused as to why they aren’t required to shed any of their overpaid players

But I’m really enjoying poor Stephen Jones’ rants against “the jealous and the defeated".

Because (according to them) they are currently within the salary cap. Possibly it could be down to one-off payments. PRL salary cap rules treat one-off payments as being evenly distributed across the length of the contract i.e. if you sign someone on £100k per annum with an initial sign on payment of £300k, Saracens may have accounted for that as £400k in year one and £100k for years 2 and 3 - maybe to try to time payments to stay within limits on various years. However the salary cap rules state that as £200k per annum. If the contract rolls over and say you re-signed the person for £150k per annum - you're annual salary has reduce £50k

So could be a factor of contracts rolling over and the new arrangements coming under the cap

Co-investments could be part of the initial sign-on payment. Though co-investments are not a problem per se - it depends on valuation. So if the player and the owner both put in £100k for a 50:50 share in a company, there is zero impact on the salary cap. The problem occurs if the owner puts in £100k and the player puts in little or nothing but gets 50% ownership (or anywhere where the amount invested doesn't equate to the % ownership

[neiliog93]

I’m confused as to why they aren’t required to shed any of their overpaid players

But I’m really enjoying poor Stephen Jones’ rants against “the jealous and the defeated".

Their overpaid players may leave for a higher salary elsewhere now that their Saracens' salaries can't be topped up by illegal extra payments.

[MylesNaGapoleen]

I’m confused as to why they aren’t required to shed any of their overpaid players

But I’m really enjoying poor Stephen Jones’ rants against “the jealous and the defeated".

Because (according to them) they are currently within the salary cap. Possibly it could be down to one-off payments. PRL salary cap rules treat one-off payments as being evenly distributed across the length of the contract i.e. if you sign someone on £100k per annum with an initial sign on payment of £300k, Saracens may have accounted for that as £400k in year one and £100k for years 2 and 3 - maybe to try to time payments to stay within limits on various years. However the salary cap rules state that as £200k per annum. If the contract rolls over and say you re-signed the person for £150k per annum - you're annual salary has reduce £50k

So could be a factor of contracts rolling over and the new arrangements coming under the cap

Co-investments could be part of the initial sign-on payment. Though co-investments are not a problem per se - it depends on valuation. So if the player and the owner both put in £100k for a 50:50 share in a company, there is zero impact on the salary cap. The problem occurs if the owner puts in £100k and the player puts in little or nothing but gets 50% ownership (or anywhere where the amount invested doesn't equate to the % ownership

interesting.

I suspect that the details might be more murky...hence the decision not to appeal the fine by saracens. I was surprised they didn't appeal after claiming for so long they did nothing wrong. They hired a PR company recently to probably try and do some damage limitation...they probably told them not to appeal...as more detail would be revealed.

If they start rolling out their salarycens stars in the premiership...or in europe (unlikely now after the whipping by racing)...this story won't go away.