Salary Cap Investigations

[Mr Ruggleby]

One thing i find wierd is vunipolas got an interest free loan it said... can that be counted if they have to pay it back? I dont know if they do but does use the term loan so it suggests.

If you look at a summary of the offences, none of them are something-for-nothing payments and are therefore not directly comparable to salary in my opinion. e.g. a £100 interest free loan is not the same as £100 salary. The "payment" component is the saving on interest, which I'd generously guess to be anywhere between 10-30% of the loan. Even the investments do technically require the player to give something up, either 30% of image rights revenue in the case of Itoje, or the future sale value/dividends of a company/property in the case of others.

The reason loans are not being seen that way, is because Ashton was the only player to have paid anything back to date and he only did so after leaving the club. Therefore the loans were treated like salary payments. The investments are similarly treated because technically Wray or other investors may never have asked for their share and there is no evidence or examples where an investment had been exited to prove otherwise.

 

[Chief Pete]

I do think they genuinely believed they had found and exploited loopholes and would win any legal or regulatory challenge. They sought independent legal and accounting advice to confirm this.

That being said, they absolutely knowingly paid players outside of the cap in order to keep them at the club, but I think it is clear that they did so thinking it was within the "technical" rules. Morally, it's clearly wrong. Also, having reviewed the salary cap wording in detail, I find it hard to believe that the legal advice didn't come with a serious caveat along the lines of "this is really risky and could put you in breach depending on interpretation." Assuming it did, then the decision to proceed and not take preemptive action to reshape the squad at an earlier point was stupid at best and knowingly devious at worst.

I feel particularly bad for Chiefs as they are the one premiership club for whom the detailed breaches would almost certainly have impacted some of the silverware won over the period.

Good post...A big problem for me is they knowingly paid players outside of the cap whilst still adding to their squad, they were over for 3 years and still added Daly & Singleton to their squad and almost got Kieron Marmion...

That's why I don't find them sincere...

 

[Mr Ruggleby]

Good post...A big problem for me is they knowingly paid players outside of the cap whilst still adding to their squad, they were over for 3 years and still added Daly & Singleton to their squad and almost got Kieron Marmion...

Absolutely agree. I suppose they thought, if we are going to get away with this, why not exploit it to the maximum.

Particularly frustrating as a fan, because I think had they focused on simply retaining their core England players, either those that came through the Academy or those who became established internationals after joining, then the sentiment around the rugby community regarding the breaches would be quite different - assuming they'd have even needed to go over the cap at all.

 

[Jimbo]

Not condoning it at all but if they hadn't have done this the premiership would have been the laughing stock of Europe in recent years, it's also telling that Murphy has said he would welcome thorough auditing across the board when early in this thread some were adamant it automatically happened which seems a slight contradiction given the length Sarries have been breaking it.

 

[Which Tyler]

Auditing happens every year - it's a matter of how thorough it all is, for a minimally funded department of PRL with 1 member of staff.

Equally, HMRC looks at everyone's tax returns each year, but that's not the same as an investigation, a thorough audit or a forensic audit.

 

[bushytop]

Auditing happens every year - it's a matter of how thorough it all is, for a minimally funded department of PRL with 1 member of staff

It's telling that it took journo's to unveil the going ons... almost as if PRL were happy to let it go on as long as it wasn't public.

 

[Which Tyler]

It's telling that it took journo's to unveil the going ons... almost as if PRL were happy to let it go on as long as it wasn't public.

From what I can gather, the cap manager has 2 months to "audit" 13 clubs (12 Prem, + whoever's promoted), including interviewing every player. Any reports received will get followed up, but probably in a "I've heard this, is it true?" way, but generally people are held to be on their honour. If nothing stands out as obviously wrong then it's left there.

He's not really there to proactively think that something's wrong without evidence, and doesn't have the resources or motivation of a team of investigative journalists sniffing a story that will make their career.

We're talking about mega-wealthy club owners in their dealings with other mega-wealthy club owners. The impression I get is that in those circles, a man's word is his bond, and if he goes against that, then they get ruthless. After 2015, they all have their word, as well as their signature, to not even look at ways to circumvent the cap. Wray lied to their faces, which is about the worst crime these people can commit - in their eyes.

 

[bushytop]

From what I can gather, the cap manager has 2 months to "audit" 13 clubs (12 Prem, + whoever's promoted), including interviewing every player. Any reports received will get followed up, but probably in a "I've heard this, is it true?" way, but generally people are held to be on their honour. If nothing stands out as obviously wrong then it's left there.

He's not really there to proactively think that something's wrong without evidence, and doesn't have the resources or motivation of a team of investigative journalists sniffing a story that will make their career.

Maybe you're right but what with Sarries (& two other clubs) being identified by PRL previously... and nothing really happening as a result, to me at least it seems like as long as 'the boat weren't a rockin', they weren't comin' a knockin'.

 

[Which Tyler]

Maybe you're right but what with Sarries (& two other clubs) being identified by PRL previously... and nothing really happening as a result, to me at least it seems like as long as 'the boat weren't rockin', they weren't comin' a knockin'.

It still wasn't two other clubs - however often it's repeated on threads like this. See the very first post on this very thread.
And something DID happen as a result, the cap was raised (suspicion was that it was raised so that the precious overspend was now legal, so nothing needed to be done to bring them in line). Then they all have their word that they would abide by both the letter and spirit of the regukations, as mega-wealthy "men of honour". Other mega-wealthy "men of honour" believed them, because that's how it seems to work in those circles.

Wray lied, then he lied about the investigation, he lied about the findings of the investigation, he lied about the co-investments, he lied about the rest of the salaries, he lied about the current year's salaries...

 

[Scotty]

I wonder what will change in the process and regulations to prevent this happening again. Is there any word yet? If and what may change?

 

[bushytop]

It still wasn't two other clubs - however often it's repeated on threads like this. See the very first post on this very thread.
And something DID happen as a result, the cap was raised (suspicion was that it was raised so that the precious overspend was now legal, so nothing needed to be done to bring them in line). Then they all have their word that they would abide by both the letter and spirit of the regukations, as mega-wealthy "men of honour". Other mega-wealthy "men of honour" believed them, because that's how it seems to work in those circles.

Wray lied, then he lied about the investigation, he lied about the findings of the investigation, he lied about the co-investments, he lied about the rest of the salaries, he lied about the current year's salaries...

I'm just going off things I've heard on podcasts and read in articles. Whether there were two other clubs originally (like way back) implicated or not Sarries obviously had some issues before but I don't think anyone honestly feels they were actually made accountable for it. You've said yourself that the leagues reaction to the infraction was to raise the cap so that it was no longer an infraction.

All I'm saying is... and it's my opinion rather than fact, is that the PRL have not helped this situation at all. There are things/measures they could have done/taken at many points throughout the last 5 or so years that would've prevented this eventual mass cluster-f**k from happening.

 

[Jimbo]

I'm just going off things I've heard on podcasts and read in articles. Whether there were two other clubs originally (like way back) implicated or not Sarries obviously had some issues before but I don't think anyone honestly feels they were actually made accountable for it. You've said yourself that the leagues reaction to the infraction was to raise the cap so that it was no longer an infraction.

All I'm saying is... and it's my opinion rather than fact, is that the PRL have not helped this situation at all. There are things/measures they could have done/taken at many points throughout the last 5 or so years that would've prevented this eventual mass cluster-f**k from happening.

Defiantly letting things go on in the past would certainly not have helped this, clearly though the current situation SHOULD be enough of a deterrent going forwards, I am still not convinced all other clubs are completely innocent.

 

[bushytop]

Defiantly letting things go on in the past would certainly not have helped this, clearly though the current situation SHOULD be enough of a deterrent going forwards, I am still not convinced all other clubs are completely innocent.

Well I can guarantee you one thing Jimbo... if the PRL ain't looking into the other clubs finances under a microscope, a whole host of journalists hoping for a career break are!

 

[Every Time Ref]

The reason loans are not being seen that way, is because Ashton was the only player to have paid anything back to date and he only did so after leaving the club. Therefore the loans were treated like salary payments. The investments are similarly treated because technically Wray or other investors may never have asked for their share and there is no evidence or examples where an investment had been exited to prove otherwise.

It sounds to me like they might have been using the loans to essentially hold players to ransom, ie if you leave you'll be asked to pay it back. A kind of double whammy cheat.

 

[bushytop]

It sounds to me like they might have been using the loans to essentially hold players to ransom, ie if you leave you'll be asked to pay it back. A kind of double whammy cheat.

Now that's a new wrinkle that hadn't occurred to me...

 

[TRF_Olyy]

It also doesn't make sense - they paid £300k towards Ashton's house and then he left the following season.

 

[Every Time Ref]

Now that's a new wrinkle that hadn't occurred to me...

View attachment 8003

Saracens salary cap breach '20, the gift that keeps on giving

 

[Scotty]

It also doesn't make sense - they paid £300k towards Ashton's house and then he left the following season.

Makes sense if hes the only one paying it back. I dont know if he is im just saying.

 

[Every Time Ref]

It also doesn't make sense - they paid £300k towards Ashton's house and then he left the following season.

What I'm wondering is, was it made clear he would not have to pay that back unless he left the club? Hence any salary negotiations with Toulon took that in to account? Just speculation obviously. A hypothesis you might call it

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Auditing happens every year - it's a matter of how thorough it all is, for a minimally funded department of PRL with 1 member of staff.

Equally, HMRC looks at everyone's tax returns each year, but that's not the same as an investigation, a thorough audit or a forensic audit.

Yes, but if HMRC do get you in their sights you tend to stay there for quite a while. Once the problem was identified PRL just seem to have failed to get a grip on it.

The overspend was £1.1m in 16/17. That's not marginal and should have been enough for PRL to have totally been on their case for more than 5 minutes. Overspend reduced to £98K in 17/18 but an overspend nonetheless, back up to £908K in 18/19 and we know they'll be over again this season.

If PRL weren't properly resourced to police their own rules that's no-one's fault but their own. Whether cock up or conspiracy on Sarries part there were red flags everywhere and if they didn't have the resources themselves PRL could have bought in auditors. You target risk and while the fault is squarely with Sarries, PRL should never have let it come to this.