Champions Cup 2020

A forum for true blue Leinster supporters to talk about and support their team

Moderator: moderators

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby desperado » November 17th, 2019, 9:00 pm

MylesNaGapoleen wrote: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/nov/17/saracens-drop-appeal-fine-points-penalty-salary-cap-breach
User avatar
desperado
Mullet
 
Posts: 1217
Joined: May 7th, 2009, 8:10 pm
Location: location location

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby D4surfer » November 17th, 2019, 9:03 pm

desperado wrote:
MylesNaGapoleen wrote: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/nov/17/saracens-drop-appeal-fine-points-penalty-salary-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.
D4surfer
Graduate
 
Posts: 533
Joined: May 13th, 2009, 11:34 am

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby blockhead » November 17th, 2019, 9:08 pm

The fine to be shared among the other clubs!!! :shock:
You know I'm going to lose,
And gambling's for fools,
But that's the way I like it baby, I don't want to live FOREVER!
User avatar
blockhead
Shane Jennings
 
Posts: 5506
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 2:20 pm
Location: Bastardstown, Co. Wexford

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby Twist » November 17th, 2019, 10:16 pm

blockhead wrote:The fine to be shared among the other clubs!!! :shock:


Really? I can’t see that anywhere. Where’d you read it?
User avatar
Twist
Enlightened
 
Posts: 968
Joined: September 14th, 2011, 2:33 am

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby blockhead » November 17th, 2019, 10:29 pm

Twist wrote:
blockhead wrote:The fine to be shared among the other clubs!!! :shock:


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


The very last line of that Guardian article.
You know I'm going to lose,
And gambling's for fools,
But that's the way I like it baby, I don't want to live FOREVER!
User avatar
blockhead
Shane Jennings
 
Posts: 5506
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 2:20 pm
Location: Bastardstown, Co. Wexford

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby Laighin Break » November 17th, 2019, 11:19 pm

blockhead wrote:
Twist wrote:
blockhead wrote:The fine to be shared among the other clubs!!! :shock:


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.
User avatar
Laighin Break
Enlightened
 
Posts: 972
Joined: May 3rd, 2012, 9:35 am
Location: Scandinavia

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby FLIP » November 17th, 2019, 11:55 pm

Laighin Break wrote:
blockhead wrote: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.
Anyone But New Zealand
FLIP
Mullet
 
Posts: 1731
Joined: May 22nd, 2009, 1:00 am

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby Laighin Break » November 18th, 2019, 7:46 am

FLIP wrote:
Laighin Break wrote:
blockhead wrote: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!
User avatar
Laighin Break
Enlightened
 
Posts: 972
Joined: May 3rd, 2012, 9:35 am
Location: Scandinavia

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby The Doc » November 18th, 2019, 10:22 am

FLIP wrote:
Laighin Break wrote:
blockhead wrote: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
I like your right leg. A lovely leg for the role.
I've got nothing against your right leg.
The trouble is ... neither have you
The Doc
Mullet
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: August 11th, 2006, 2:59 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby blockhead » November 18th, 2019, 10:23 am

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.
You know I'm going to lose,
And gambling's for fools,
But that's the way I like it baby, I don't want to live FOREVER!
User avatar
blockhead
Shane Jennings
 
Posts: 5506
Joined: December 14th, 2011, 2:20 pm
Location: Bastardstown, Co. Wexford

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby MylesNaGapoleen » November 18th, 2019, 3:47 pm

blockhead wrote:
Twist wrote:
blockhead wrote:The fine to be shared among the other clubs!!! :shock:


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.
User avatar
MylesNaGapoleen
Enlightened
 
Posts: 922
Joined: September 18th, 2009, 11:04 am

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby The Doc » November 18th, 2019, 3:52 pm

MylesNaGapoleen wrote: 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
I like your right leg. A lovely leg for the role.
I've got nothing against your right leg.
The trouble is ... neither have you
The Doc
Mullet
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: August 11th, 2006, 2:59 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby MylesNaGapoleen » November 18th, 2019, 4:35 pm

The Doc wrote:
MylesNaGapoleen wrote: 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.
User avatar
MylesNaGapoleen
Enlightened
 
Posts: 922
Joined: September 18th, 2009, 11:04 am

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby artaneboy » November 18th, 2019, 7:50 pm

Dave Cahill wrote: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
"Oh, I used to be disgusted, and now I try to be amused!"
User avatar
artaneboy
Brian O'Driscoll
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: January 25th, 2011, 8:46 pm
Location: closer than you think...

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby tomthefan » November 18th, 2019, 11:06 pm

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
You have been banned for the following reason:
No reason was specified.

Date this ban will be lifted: Never
User avatar
tomthefan
Knowledgeable
 
Posts: 416
Joined: April 16th, 2018, 1:09 pm

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby Twist » November 19th, 2019, 1:30 pm

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".
User avatar
Twist
Enlightened
 
Posts: 968
Joined: September 14th, 2011, 2:33 am

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby ronk » November 19th, 2019, 4:26 pm

Twist wrote: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.
User avatar
ronk
Cian Healy
 
Posts: 9854
Joined: April 9th, 2009, 12:42 am

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby The Doc » November 19th, 2019, 4:34 pm

Twist wrote: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
I like your right leg. A lovely leg for the role.
I've got nothing against your right leg.
The trouble is ... neither have you
The Doc
Mullet
 
Posts: 1781
Joined: August 11th, 2006, 2:59 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby neiliog93 » November 19th, 2019, 8:03 pm

Twist wrote: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.
"This is breathless stuff.....it's on again. Contepomi out to Hickie,D'Arcy,Hickie.......................HICKIE FOR THE CORNER! THAT IS AWESOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
neiliog93
Brian O'Driscoll
 
Posts: 3783
Joined: April 12th, 2008, 11:42 am

Re: Champions Cup 2020

Postby MylesNaGapoleen » November 19th, 2019, 8:12 pm

The Doc wrote:
Twist wrote: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.
User avatar
MylesNaGapoleen
Enlightened
 
Posts: 922
Joined: September 18th, 2009, 11:04 am

PreviousNext

Return to Leinster Addicts

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], cormac, Ruckedtobits and 11 guests