• Help Support The Rugby Forum :

Salary Cap Investigations

also doesn't the draft help with parity to some extent?

Kind of. The NFL is such a QB-driven league though, and it distorts the whole thing. A lot of the successful NFL teams in recent years have had strong D and good enough young QBs on first contracts (4-5 seasons), or teams with QBs who will take less money so that the team can spend more on other players (see Tom Brady). Second contracts for good QBs are often a bit of a killer as they command so much of a team's cap (not to mention big contracts for mediocre QBs, looking at Joe Flacco and Brock Osweiler specifically). Aaron Rodgers and Russell Wilson are good examples of this - both Packers and Seahawks have been competitive in large part because of those players, but they haven't been complete teams since they were on rookie contracts.

Also, I was under the impression that the salary cap in rugby was partially a financial sustainability thing - limited expansion to avoid doing a Richmond. Also, the situation is very different from the US sports given that the PRL isn't a monopoly/cartel in the same way.
 
As a Sarries fan it's obviously disappointing. But, pending the results of the appeal, a breach of the rules deserves a punishment and Premiership Rugby have decided to send a message - fair enough. Assuming everything sticks it clearly taints the ***les and success we've enjoyed during the breach period.

There are a number of things that have been said here that I find to be inaccurate or ill-informed though. Whilst I won't make excuses, I do think that the following points should be considered:

- The breach is entirely focused on co-investments. These co-investments were not in lieu of salary - of course they will have acted as a perk/top-up, but it's not like Owen Farrell was getting paid massively under market e.g. a £20k salary and then a huge bonus under the table. Assuming the appeal fails, it is still cheating of course, but I think it's important to contextualise.
- The players involved in the co-investment schemes were all England internationals and mostly came through the Academy or if not, at least played their best rugby whilst supported by the club. (so claims that all of this is about bringing in Will Skelton, Williams or other foreign stars is mostly incorrect).
- Saracens have generated more England players and Coaches than any other Club in the last decade. The style of play, mentality and work ethic clearly translated to the national team through coaches and leading players with great effect. I wonder how different the coverage would be had we won the World Cup with Maro, Mako, Billy, Jamie, Owen, Ben & George all playing significant roles...

As a wider thought on the salary cap in general, I personally think that a club shouldn't be forced to dispense with players that it has developed simply because they have become proven internationals. I would like to see Academy credits extended and greater cap allowances for English internationals. Otherwise, a club like Saracens who loses a huge amount of players to international duty is forced to choose between getting rid of their England players and replacing them with retired internationals/foreign imports or struggling to compete during international windows, which in turn results in worse results and less club success/revenue.

By no means do I condone the breach of the salary cap, regardless of what other clubs may or may not do, nor will I whinge if we are relegated as a result of the punishment or through losing players. However, I do worry about the impact that this will have on the national team and I do think it's a shame that the club who have proven to be the best at identifying and developing world class talent in recent years, the best at managing players and their families (outside of salary cap related things e.g. The Saracens Creche, the team events and trips, the career support and management courses, support of multiple foundations) and created one of the best team ethos's as a result, is now being torn apart (to the obvious glee of many other fans on here and elsewhere).

Cheating is wrong and should be punished, no argument from me there and we should take our medicine. But anyone who makes out that this is only a good thing for English Rugby is sadly misguided.
 
- Saracens have generated more England players and Coaches than any other Club in the last decade. The style of play, mentality and work ethic clearly translated to the national team through coaches and leading players with great effect. I wonder how different the coverage would be had we won the World Cup with Maro, Mako, Billy, Jamie, Owen, Ben & George all playing significant roles...


Would've changed **** all.
 
- Saracens have generated more England players and Coaches than any other Club in the last decade. The style of play, mentality and work ethic clearly translated to the national team through coaches and leading players with great effect. I wonder how different the coverage would be had we won the World Cup with Maro, Mako, Billy, Jamie, Owen, Ben & George all playing significant roles...


Would've changed **** all.
Not only that, there is the not totally unreasonable argument that the findings may have indeed derailed England's world cup bid.

I'm surprised Sarries are contesting it to the extent they are, the punishment is quite lenient considering the number of years it has gone on for. I would be surprised if they're relegated and £5million is a lot of money but the owner can afford it plus CVC cash.
 
- The breach is entirely focused on co-investments. These co-investments were not in lieu of salary - of course they will have acted as a perk/top-up, but it's not like Owen Farrell was getting paid massively under market e.g. a £20k salary and then a huge bonus under the table. Assuming the appeal fails, it is still cheating of course, but I think it's important to contextualise.

I get that, but I'm sure the salary is less than if he went elsewhere. I don't dispute that they still pay a good salary, but they can afford to pay slightly less, which has then enabled them to bring in other high profile players that they might not have been able to afford otherwise. For me the issue is less about how players are getting paid and more that they've been able to rotate players without the same loss as other teams, which is where they have had a huge advantage.
 
I think to an extent you fail to see the point of a salary cap.

1) To not bankrupt teams, Saracens have retained talent by spending more than other teams. We've seen what happens when teams overreach in London Welsh and we don't want more examples. A monetary arms race would be bad for the sport in general and lead to more clubs collapsing. Look what happening in football.

2) The other point is entirely to stop Saracens retaining all the top talent regardless of where they came from. This levels to some extent the playing field and allows other teams the opportunity to compete. Giving us a more a competive league where multiple teams can compete. All player not being centralised in one location and also then not as severely hampered in international windows. If Saracens don't want to as hampered (and it's hardly caused that big an issue considering Thier table position) during international windows. Maybe don't have as many international players.... Yes you can argue Saracens developed them but the entire point is not have all the best players located in one team.

Regardless of whether Saracens are successful in their appeal or not (I hope they aren't) they certainly undermined the spirit of those rules for thier intended purpose in buying success by spending more money than other clubs were able thus being able to retain players they should not have and bought new ones in. I have little sympathy for them at all.
 
I get that, but I'm sure the salary is less than if he went elsewhere. I don't dispute that they still pay a good salary, but they can afford to pay slightly less, which has then enabled them to bring in other high profile players that they might not have been able to afford otherwise. For me the issue is less about how players are getting paid and more that they've been able to rotate players without the same loss as other teams, which is where they have had a huge advantage.

Fair point and definitely would have had an impact on their ability to bring in other players - just not to the extent that some have suggested.

I would genuinely be interested in peoples' opinions about the sustainability of teams that develop a disproportionate number of international players. What is the right approach?

To me it seems that a strategy focused on being successful in the Premiership would not traditionally align with what is best for the national team. That creates an issue because in rugby, international success is clearly still the pinnacle for players and most fans. I strongly disagree that the same incentives are there to develop talent through an academy if you cannot keep the players or reap some reward. That's why I think there should either be a very significant discount against the cap or additional "marquee player" slots for homegrown talent. Or failing that, we could look at a structure that affords greater remuneration to the club when they lose a player that they've developed. This would have been game changing for a number of clubs, like London Irish, Newcastle and Yorkshire (Leeds) Carnegie over the last 15 years or so.
 
You already get a discount for homegrown talent your arguing for a further discount so it's easier to say poach Elliott Daly. Or to buy other quality players.
 
I think to an extent you fail to see the point of a salary cap.

1) To not bankrupt teams, Saracens have retained talent by spending more than other teams. We've seen what happens when teams overreach in London Welsh and we don't want more examples. A monetary arms race would be bad for the sport in general and lead to more clubs collapsing. Look what happening in football.

2) The other point is entirely to stop Saracens retaining all the top talent regardless of where they came from. This levels to some extent the playing field and allows other teams the opportunity to compete. Giving us a more a competive league where multiple teams can compete. All player not being centralised in one location and also then not as severely hampered in international windows. If Saracens don't want to as hampered (and it's hardly caused that big an issue considering Thier table position) during international windows. Maybe don't have as many international players.... Yes you can argue Saracens developed them but the entire point is not have all the best players located in one team.

Regardless of whether Saracens are successful in their appeal or not (I hope they aren't) they certainly undermined the spirit of those rules for thier intended purpose in buying success by spending more money than other clubs were able thus being able to retain players they should not have and bought new ones in. I have little sympathy for them at all.

I fully understand the point of a salary cap and the benefits to league parity it creates. If you look at the Premiership in isolation then sure, it doesn't matter how or why you breach the cap - it amounts to the same disproportionate benefit for the team in question. However, if you consider the wider game in England, I think there is a big difference between a team breaching the cap with a Toulon-esque strategy of recruiting foreign galacticos that directly hampers the development of English talent vs developing and attempting to retain players that make up half the English starting pack and Captain!

Again, I'm not saying the punishment isn't deserved. I'm just saying that in the first instance, there is minimal argument for reform. But when a team is clearly focused on feeding and improving the national team, perhaps there is an argument to say that more could be done in the future to encourage/incentivise more teams to do so (without breaching the cap of course).
 
You already get a discount for homegrown talent your arguing for a further discount so it's easier to say poach Elliott Daly. Or to buy other quality players.

Look - not everybody has the luxury of having all of their "Academy" prospects salaried by another club until they are ready to be "called up" to the Bath squad. Some clubs have to pay those players before they are ready to play in the 1st XV and I think they should be rewarded for that. London Irish might have even been able to keep a few of your players if that was the case...
 
Those players we bought when we were breaking the rules (and Saracens were)? Yup that wasn't right either.
 
Those players we bought when we were breaking the rules (and Saracens were)? Yup that wasn't right either.

What are you talking about?! I've clearly accepted and stated multiple times that the rules were breached (pending appeal), that was wrong and we'll take our medicine. At no point have I accused Bath of anything either.

I am making a separate point that perhaps we should encourage and incentivise teams to develop their own talent and allow them to either keep the players or profit from that development. London Irish developed a tonne of talent and where did that get them - relegated once Bath "poached" most them. How have they responded now that they are back in the Premiership? Hiring a bunch of non-English qualified players to ensure they are competitive throughout the year.

Want another example? Look at Sale, they have one of the more promising Academy set-ups but with their recent hires they have focused on non-English qualifies players or players out of favour with England. I fear that now they have spent up to the cap, they will be faced with the prospect of struggling to keep their home-grown English talent, particularly if the likes of Solomona and Yarde get called up again or Ben joins Tom in the England set up.

My point is that, at the moment what is best for England is not best for Premiership success. Could we do more to make these more aligned and stop forcing clubs to chose between Premiership success or focusing on developing England Internationals (without breaching the cap/cheating)? I think the answer is yes - it appears you think differently.
 
Isn't there already quite a bit of extra funding/cap space for keeping your academy players?
 
Isn't there already quite a bit of extra funding/cap space for keeping your academy players?
Yes

https://www.premiershiprugby.com/about-premiership-rugby/about-us/salary-cap/
The current level of the Salary Cap for 2017-18 is £7m, plus two Excluded Players whose salaries sit outside the cap, enabling clubs to recruit and retain world class talent. Within the £7 million Salary Cap ceiling, clubs are encouraged to develop home grown talent by accessing up to £600,000 of Home Grown Player Credits. Also, they can provide an unlimited education (academic or vocational) fund to their players, and can replace long-term injured players without impacting on their Salary Cap ceiling.

Injury Dispensations up to a maximum of £400,000 per season continue to be available to each Club, a new England Senior EPS or International Player Credit of up to £80,000 per player has been introduced to cover for player absence during international periods and there is a new overrun tax on any Salary spend of up to 5% over the Base level (5% being £350,000 in 2017-18).
So an additional 8.5% on the cap for Home Grown Players, note the definition of home grown
https://www.lawinsport.com/content/...8-19-the-principal-changes-for-the-new-season
Home Grown Senior Player" is defined, in Regulation 1' as "… a Senior Player who has been a Player at the Club since prior to his 18th birthday and for at least two complete Salary Cap Years prior to the current Salary Cap Year."
 
There is.

Also the RFU give clubs a lot of funding for academies. (Which seems to have been forgotten by saracens fans).
 
It should also be noted clubs also get two players they can exclude from the salary cap rules entirely.
 
So an additional 8.5% on the cap for Home Grown Players, note the definition of home grown

This amounts to approximately 1.5 x a single star players salary, what happens if you have 5 or 6? Also, what about the benefit of developing players who fall outside this bracket but the club has clearly developed e.g. Billy, or are you suggesting rugby players stop developing at 18?

Other sports have mechanisms in place to compensate clubs for losing players that they develop. Football has a huge transfer market, the NFL has longer rookie contracts and awards compensatory draft picks when you lose players. Rugby currently doesn't have a mechanism to reward teams for long-term coaching and player development. I think that is a flaw in the game.

Either way you still seem to be missing my main point that currently, developing English Internationals is, at best, not correlated to Premiership success and there is significant evidence to suggest that in fact the opposite is true - see attached.

*I used the teams that the players were at during the 18/19 season rather than where they were moving to.

The teams are in order of their Premiership finishing position. If you were to remove Saracens (who obtained their position by breaching the cap), you would be close to a dangerous trend suggesting fewer England players corresponds to a better league position.

There is.Also the RFU give clubs a lot of funding for academies. (Which seems to have been forgotten by saracens fans).

Can you show a source for this and how it is distributed, I'm interested to see it? I'm also not sure how this detracts from my point - they may fund the Academy but if teams are incentivised to fill their squads with players who will be available year round (i.e. foreign or retired players) then it doesn't matter how much the Academy is funded, the products are not going to get opportunities to play.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-11-7_9-40-50.png
    upload_2019-11-7_9-40-50.png
    33.8 KB · Views: 14
Last edited:
This amounts to approximately 1.5 x a single star players salary, what happens if you have 5 or 6? Also, what about the benefit of developing players who fall outside this bracket but the club has clearly developed e.g. Billy, or are you suggesting rugby players stop developing at 18?

Other sports have mechanisms in place to compensate clubs for losing players that they develop. Football has a huge transfer market, the NFL has longer rookie contracts and awards compensatory draft picks when you lose players. Rugby currently doesn't have a mechanism to reward teams for long-term coaching and player development. I think that is a flaw in the game.

Either way you still seem to be missing my main point that currently, developing English Internationals is, at best, not correlated to Premiership success and there is significant evidence to suggest that in fact the opposite is true - see attached.

*I used the teams that the players were at during the 18/19 season rather than where they were moving to.

The teams are in order of their Premiership finishing position. If you were to remove Saracens (who obtained their position by breaching the cap), you would be close to a dangerous trend suggesting fewer England players corresponds to a better league position.



Can you show a source for this and how it is distributed, I'm interested to see it? I'm also not sure how this detracts from my point - they may fund the Academy but if teams are incentivised to fill their squads with players who will be available year round (i.e. foreign or retired players) then it doesn't matter how much the Academy is funded, the products are not going to get opportunities to play.
Is the attatched file showing tigers and sarries both having 6,(though i can only think of 5 tigers the 6th is alluding me).

How many players did sarries have at the WC? For all teams.

Maitland, taylor. Scotland
LWilliams, Carre?. Wales
Any more?
I know 1 for usa

Will the players take a pay cut or jump ship i wonder? Atm they get salary+investment(top players). Take away investment and likly not paying what they are worth.
 
Sale Sharks Academy DPP Strategic Plan 2019-20 10
Sale Sharks Academy Pathway: Sale Sharks Academy DPP Strategic Plan 2019-20 11 Finance & Funding
Finance for the programme will be provided to each Regional Academy and spend approved through the RPPG. RFU investment into the DPP should be matched by the Regional Academy (in cash or value in kind), while CB investment from own reserves is optional. Medical and Safeguarding courses will be funded centrally by the Rugby Football Union. Annual funding will be confirmed in the March of the preceding year to support planning. Funding will be released in three tranches: Funding release will be conditional on planning and implementation of this framework and signed off by RFU staff. Each Regional Player Pathway Group will be responsible for submission of proposed budget and actual spend in the annual plan and review


I do kind of like this whole take that has been happening.
Saracens fans: We don't agree with what has happened BUT we have created English rugby by ourselves and have helped inflate the player wage market in England and are being punished for it.....

I don't see why Saracens should be allowed to use their production of players as an excuse to mismanage the cap.
What about the other clubs who have had players they produced pinched? Like the vunipola brothers?
 
from the times.
"The independent panel's ruling stated that Saracens, as well as exceeding the salary cap for three successive seasons, had "failed to disclose payments to players". The details of those failures to reveal the full extent of their payments to players is yet to be revealed but evidence has been presented to investigators about the club's use of image-rights payments to offshore accounts."

Also lovely from Dimes
Steve Diamond, the Sale Sharks director of rugby, said that Saracens should drop their appeal and "take your medicine and get on with it. What they've done in the past is done. Maybe take down the honesty signs from the stadium for a f***ing year".
 

Latest posts

Top