Recent Salary cap stories...

[ncurd]

When is it a loophole and when is it legtimate business practice/player applying his right to earn money outside of rugby?

Attwood made an appearance at the Dyson awards the other night, is he not allowed to accept money as appearance fee? What about other after dinner speaking that players have been known to do?

Each Bath player has an indivdual sponsor does that count towards the salary cap? Probably Yes what about Robshaw's endorsement deals for things like beats headphones does that count towards Quins' salary cap?


I'm just saying that whilst settlements have been reached we don't have any clue how clear cut the case was against the teams and what can of worms it would of opened had it pursued in public.

 

[Raggs]

When is it a loophole and when is it legtimate business practice/player applying his right to earn money outside of rugby?

Attwood made an appearance at the Dyson awards the other night, is he not allowed to accept money as appearance fee? What about other after dinner speaking that players have been known to do?

Each Bath player has an indivdual sponsor does that count towards the salary cap? Probably Yes what about Robshaw's endorsement deals for things like beats headphones does that count towards Quins' salary cap?


I'm just saying that whilst settlements have been reached we don't have any clue how clear cut the case was against the teams and what can of worms it would of opened had it pursued in public.

If Bath can prove that Dave Attwood would very likely had been at that event, and picked up that fee, if he'd been playing for Gloucester, then it's legitimate.

I would imagine it's easier for England players, since if the RFU endorses the sponsorship, then it can be placed on their "tab" and not the clubs cap.

Most importantly, it's a loophole when the club has to pay a settlement for using it.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Most importantly, it's a loophole when the club has to pay a settlement for using it.

You don't pay someone in a settlement if you've done nothing wrong.

 

[Tony Manx]

You don't pay someone in a settlement if you've done nothing wrong.

Actually you do where a spurious action may take up more resources (money, management time etc) than it is worth. They are termed S ex gracia or no guilt admitted settlements!!

 

[Mattybuck]

The details re the cap are probably plain and simple.

However they would not remain so in the hands of lawyers!

Clubs now have an increase in the salary cap and have gone what they want, which is pretty much parity with French teams.

Justice will not be served... Sad but true

 

[Raggs]

Depending on how 3rd party payments are now handled, it's quite possibly still a long way off French teams. The French cap is near meaningless. A player can receive 10k from the club, but 90k from a different business (even if owned by the same guy) and it doesn't count towards the cap.

 

[j'nuh]

When is it a loophole and when is it legtimate business practice/player applying his right to earn money outside of rugby?

Attwood made an appearance at the Dyson awards the other night, is he not allowed to accept money as appearance fee? What about other after dinner speaking that players have been known to do?

Each Bath player has an indivdual sponsor does that count towards the salary cap? Probably Yes what about Robshaw's endorsement deals for things like beats headphones does that count towards Quins' salary cap?


I'm just saying that whilst settlements have been reached we don't have any clue how clear cut the case was against the teams and what can of worms it would of opened had it pursued in public.

See Schedule 1 of the salary cap regulations:
http://www.premiershiprugby.com/downloads/SalaryCapRegulations201516.pdf

In particular:

For the avoidance of doubt, the following are excluded for the purposes of determining total Salary

a) any payments or benefits in kind in connection with an individual sponsorship,endorsement, merchandising, employment or other individual arrangement between a Player (or any Connected Party of a Player) and any Connected Party ofthe Club or Third Party which the Salary Cap Manager reasonably concludes on the balance of probabilities should not be considered Salary, having taken into account the following factors:

(i) if the arrangement is with a Connected Party, it will be more likely to be considered Salary;
(ii) if the arrangement was negotiated and/or intended to be entered into at arm's length from the Player's Club, it will be less likely to be considered Salary;
(iii) if the arrangement was negotiated at or around the same time as the Playing Contract for the Player, it will be more likely to be considered Salary;
(iv) if the obligations of the Player under the arrangement in question are linked to his Club, it will be more likely to be considered Salary;


[etc. the list is very long, I've just copied over a bit of it]

 

[ncurd]

I think the fact that goes into detail of what might and might not be considered salary with less and highly likely proves it's nowhere close to clear what constitutes what.

 

[j'nuh]

I think the fact that goes into detail of what might and might not be considered salary with less and highly likely proves it's nowhere close to clear what constitutes what.

Fair point if teams have breached it by a few thousand pounds by mistakenly believing that X didn't count as salary. A public statement with the facts, an apology, a fine and (if breached by a reasonable amount) a small points deduction would have been okay and it would have been quickly forgotten. But the scale of the investigation and the stink it has kicked up suggests that it is a much bigger amount. (Diamond suggested teams have breached it by £2m.) If it is a large amount, then it being a mistake goes out of the window; it would then be knowingly operating in the grey area without seeking clarification on what they were doing was okay.

 

[j'nuh]

Gloucester have made their statement:

http://www.gloucesterrugby.co.uk/news/11858.php#.VjIlNvnhCUl

Gloucester Rugby is not one of the clubs to which Premiership Rugby referred within its statement as being involved in conversations relating to access to information and to commercial contracts where there were differences of opinion as to the inclusion or not in a salary cap.

Implication appears to be that the central issue is over a difference of opinion on whether commercial activities taken up by players have been facilitated by the club or not and therefore whether they should be deemed as within the cap or not.

It does make it very difficult to police though. A team when signing a player: "Keep hush about this, but we've managed to get you a lucrative commercial contract. X will be in contact with you halfway through the year, make it look like they approached you. We had nothing to do with it." You would need the club, agent, player or commercial partner to come forward to say that this is what happened - and who will actually do that?

It would be interesting to see a comparison of the amount of commercial income received by the players of each club that isn't connected to the salary cap. You would think that if deals were being facilitated by clubs, that player income not included in the salary cap would be a lot higher than from other clubs. If the players of the Tigers are collectively receiving £400k from outside deals, and the players of Sarries are receiving £2m, you know that something is up.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Glous are big cheaters anyway.

 

[j'nuh]

Glous are big cheaters anyway.

eh

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

eh

Azam!!!!!!!

Not that I'm one to hold a grudge.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

Saints have come out and stated they haven't made any settlement and are in full agreement of the cap in the Northampton chronicle. Can't link on my phone I'm afraid.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

So far Falcons, Exeter, Bath, Sarries and Tigers

Left to officially say.

 

[Don't Skip Leg Day]

So far Falcons, Exeter, Bath, Sarries and Tigers

Left to officially say.

We all know it's bath and sarries though.

The only things tigers broke were their players! If the cap includes Physio time maybe then lol

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Talk Tigers might have made a deal for Sarries to stop flashing the cash at Manu.

 

[j'nuh]

So far Falcons, Exeter, Bath, Sarries and Tigers

Left to officially say.

BBC says everyone but Bath, Sarries and Tigers have confirmed it wasn't them.

Wasn't there talk for a bit about how a third team had gone over the cap, or am I making that up? I wonder if Tigers went over (even if slightly) and don't want it all to come out now.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/34669989

Talk Tigers might have made a deal for Sarries to stop flashing the cash at Manu.

A properly enforced salary cap would stop that too.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

BBC have got it wrong along with a few sources.

Saying you didn't break cap means fuk all as according to PRL no one did. Glous, Irish, Wasps, Saints and Quins will prob are the only ones to say not involved in settlements.

2 clubs have been confirmed as paying settlements (For some reason but not breaking cap ).

 

[ratsapprentice]

http://www.bathrugby.com/news/bath-rugby-statement-3/

lel