Are Saracens about to get automatically relegated?

[Puja]

I don't understand why money paid to players as compensation to leave should be considered as part of the wage bill. How do Saracens benefit unfairly in playing terms from that? Surely that compensation would enable those players to play the rest of the season for other clubs without those clubs having to pay so much - possibly the difference between keeping our internationals in our game or not.

I would imagine to stop clubs from giving half their bench the Spanish Archer if the opportunity to buy Kieran Read turns up partway through the season.

Puja

[Peej]

Remember how Sarries said they were cap compliant this season when the judgement was first handed out? The arrogance and the consistent deceit is breathtaking, and to be honest they deserve everything they get.

For the long-term integrity of the league, I'd be content for England to have a poor year if they can't pick players that have been assembled into one squad. Either those players will move to different teams to play for England, or they'll move to France at which point others will take their place.

[Gloskarlos]

Frankly there’s an argument for Sarries to be sent right to to bottom, as Rangers were. Is it fair on Championship teams if Sarries are relegated? Pirates, Ealing , Jersey and Yorkshire Carnegie Have all done their utmost to be promoted, putting Saracens in that league for them to overcome seems grossly unfair.

[Shiny]

Remember how Sarries said they were cap compliant this season when the judgement was first handed out? The arrogance and the consistent deceit is breathtaking, and to be honest they deserve everything they get.

For the long-term integrity of the league, I'd be content for England to have a poor year if they can't pick players that have been assembled into one squad. Either those players will move to different teams to play for England, or they'll move to France at which point others will take their place.

This is pretty much where I sit on this. We are not 3 months from a world cup, we can take the hit with the national team maybe not having a couple of stars available.

[Mellsblue]

Brendan Venter’s twitter feed is worth a read.

Mod - https://mobile.twitter.com/BrendanVenter

[Epaminondas Pules]

Brendan Venter’s twitter feed is worth a read.

It is isn't it....do think there is more to come in the whole picture, not just Sarries.

A big problem is the refusal to release the original judgement, which is as much about the other 11 clubs voting against releasing it as Sarries, which means so much is pure speculation.

I do feel for their fans (not necessarily all of them mind) and truly admire everything they have done aside from this rather major issue.

[Which Tyler]

It seems like a very odd thing to do. Of course Saracens couldn't get under the cap this season. How would they? This staggered punishment seems bizarre - hitting them for a second go for the same offence when there was no way to change it at all.

They had the chance. Saracens knew before the season started - it was announced that something was going to happen during the RWC; and the announcement on what it was came immediately after. They chose initially to fight it, then decided not to, and deny it, then claim that they're already compliant for this year. That delay could have been used to trim the bills; what might have been a (random number) 10% cut all round if decided in November, might have become a 20% cut all round by the time they actually started doing something.
Or you can remove 100% of a player's wage from the bill by not playing them. Much easier to do had they decided to do that before the season actually started.

As for the second hit - sounds like a suspended sentence to me - which seems pretty common.
"We can apply 3 years' worth of 35 point reductions. We'll apply 35 points now, the other 70 suspended, to be applied if you put a toe over the line in the next 3 years"

It's the bit in the BBC article that gets me: "Furthermore, any money paid as compensation to players for cutting short contracts would also be included in the wage bill."

How the hell are they supposed to reduce their wage bill without letting players go and paying them compensation which will then increase their wage bill? I'm not a Saracens fan (and gods know that I wouldn't mind Leicester having immunity from relegation this season!), but this doesn't feel apt or appropriate. It should either have been included in the first punishment or, worst case, carried as a points deduction next year. You can't relegate them for failing to do the impossible.

This has always been the case, and if plenty of fans have known it, then the Saracens' salary cap managers have no excuse (I found out all this crap with the [Redacted] affair). If you find another club for the player, then there's no (or much reduced) settlement for termination - this includes sending the player out on loan. If the player never stepped on the pitch for the club during the season involved, then their salary - including any termination settlements, is outside the cap. This would have been easy if they'd taken it seriously before the first match of the season (I think A-league doesn't count, dunno about the Pointless Cup); but is rather tougher now that everyone's had some game-time.

If they release players who haven't made a first team appearance then - it has been reported - those wages wouldn't count towards the cap. But I don't see how that works given that a termination of contract surely has some kind of pay off attached?

Nope; the player still gets paid, but it's outside the salary cap because you haven't used them.

Is this not really bad for the national team? Surely most clubs in the prem are at their wage caps. So a large contingent of supposed internationals are either going to have to play in the championship or go to france? A load of young players that should be getting prem experience are going to be in the championship.

They won't be relegated with immediate effect - they'll be down next year. Clubs are still making their moves for next year; with 2-3 clubs spending fairly well below the salary cap as it is. With potentially the likes of Itoje / Farrell / George on the market, someone like Newcastle or LIrish may well be able to find a few extra £££ to take them on - let alone clubs like Leicester / Bath / Exeter who might still be putting next year's squad together.

I don't understand why money paid to players as compensation to leave should be considered as part of the wage bill. How do Saracens benefit unfairly in playing terms from that? Surely that compensation would enable those players to play the rest of the season for other clubs without those clubs having to pay so much - possibly the difference between keeping our internationals in our game or not.

Because it's a payment required by contract, being made by the club to a player.
Why on earth wouldn't it be salary?
Without it counting - what would there be to stop a club just deciding that a contract is inconvenient, and getting rid because someone else might have come onto the market?

[Banquo]

Brendan Venter’s twitter feed is worth a read.

It is isn't it....do think there is more to come in the whole picture, not just Sarries.

A big problem is the refusal to release the original judgement, which is as much about the other 11 clubs voting against releasing it as Sarries, which means so much is pure speculation.

I do feel for their fans (not necessarily all of them mind) and truly admire everything they have done aside from this rather major issue.

This. Notwithstanding the wrongs of this, they had set up what looked like a brilliant model for a modern properly professional club, looking after players properly, developing young talent, and laying down excellent community roots. However, this issue unfortunately negates much of this excellence- if this sinks them, and I think it would- it’d be a tremendous loss, even setting aside the impact on intl players.

[Stom]

Remember how Sarries said they were cap compliant this season when the judgement was first handed out? The arrogance and the consistent deceit is breathtaking, and to be honest they deserve everything they get.

For the long-term integrity of the league, I'd be content for England to have a poor year if they can't pick players that have been assembled into one squad. Either those players will move to different teams to play for England, or they'll move to France at which point others will take their place.

This is pretty much where I sit on this. We are not 3 months from a world cup, we can take the hit with the national team maybe not having a couple of stars available.

Why would it hit England so badly? The Sarries players likely aren't going to Japan anyway (at least the important ones).

And it's not even the England players at Sarries that are the problem, it's the giants they have on top of that. They have 5 international props, ffs!

Koch, Shelton, Maitland, LWilliams. There's a good chunk of cap saved. We're probably talking almost 2m at market rates there, no? So at least 1m at Sarries rates. Which is substantial and doesn't impact any English players except getting more gametime for English players.

[Oakboy]

I don't understand why money paid to players as compensation to leave should be considered as part of the wage bill. How do Saracens benefit unfairly in playing terms from that? Surely that compensation would enable those players to play the rest of the season for other clubs without those clubs having to pay so much - possibly the difference between keeping our internationals in our game or not.

Because it's a payment required by contract, being made by the club to a player.
Why on earth wouldn't it be salary?
Without it counting - what would there be to stop a club just deciding that a contract is inconvenient, and getting rid because someone else might have come onto the market?

Generally, you are right, of course, but I was meaning specific action as part of an agreed course to reduce the salary bill and comply. Action by Saracens to pay players not to play for them but to become available to other clubs more cheaply (and keep them in the English game) strikes me as a win/win.

[Which Tyler]

This. Notwithstanding the wrongs of this, they had set up what looked like a brilliant model for a modern properly professional club, looking after players properly, developing young talent, and laying down excellent community roots. However, this issue unfortunately negates much of this excellence- if this sinks them, and I think it would- it’d be a tremendous loss, even setting aside the impact on intl players.

And that's the reason I don't think relegation will be death of Saracens.
They've put into place everything they need to be a sustainable Premiership club.
What will cost them, is if Wray removes all of his cash as well, just at the time the brand is at its most toxic. They'd still bounce straight back up from the Championship; but then they'd be contending with Newcastle, Worcester & London Irish for a few years.
Their turnover and wage bill is upper-midtable for the Prem. That should be sustainable; just so long as they make their cuts to suit the cloth.
Yes, they'll lose some big names; but probably keep their academy graduates (or just lose them for a year) - which brings them back in line with the rest of the premiership.

[Mellsblue]

If they lose Wray and major sponsors, Allianz etc, they are surely in the poo. There are no other major income streams, that I know of, to rely on. Whereas (the virtuous) Exe have the conference centre bringing in a lot of £££££ (non-virtuous) Sarries built a school.......

[Which Tyler]

Generally, you are right, of course, but I was meaning specific action as part of an agreed course to reduce the salary bill and comply. Action by Saracens to pay players not to play for them but to become available to other clubs more cheaply (and keep them in the English game) strikes me as a win/win.

I can't know - but I wouldn't be surprised if they were allowed some leniency for this exceptional circumstances - they just delayed too long before taking any action. Bear in mind, the settlement, is typically the rest of that year's salary - possibly more if there were multiple years left on the contract and they're released too late in the season to find a new club.

Otherwise, needing to transfer a player out before allowing a new one in is standard practice to stay under the cap. It's one I don't like, because I feel that contracts should be binding, not just transferred if inconvenient - but it's one that's happened many times just for Bath (and about which I rant on occassion).
This week alone, we've got rid of Jamie Roberts, and replaced him with Josh Matavesi - but we're not paying any settlement because he's going somewhere else. Previously, we've sent several players out on loan for half a season to avoid a settlement, or a full season to get their salary out of the cap. The only one I can think of where we outright fired a player without a new club to go to was Kyle Eastmond - who never played for us that year, and was therefore outside of the cap, including settlement.

Even Sarries themselves knew this from their "night of the long knives" when Venter took over.

[Banquo]

If they lose Wray and major sponsors, Allianz etc, they are surely in the poo. There are no other major income streams, that I know of, to rely on. Whereas (the virtuous) Exe have the conference centre bringing in a lot of £££££ (non-virtuous) Sarries built a school.......

This. At the very best they’d be a shadow, pull out of all the local investment, and have a debt and cash flow problem, cos Wray will walk.

[Banquo]

This. Notwithstanding the wrongs of this, they had set up what looked like a brilliant model for a modern properly professional club, looking after players properly, developing young talent, and laying down excellent community roots. However, this issue unfortunately negates much of this excellence- if this sinks them, and I think it would- it’d be a tremendous loss, even setting aside the impact on intl players.

And that's the reason I don't think relegation will be death of Saracens.
They've put into place everything they need to be a sustainable Premiership club.
What will cost them, is if Wray removes all of his cash as well, just at the time the brand is at its most toxic. They'd still bounce straight back up from the Championship; but then they'd be contending with Newcastle, Worcester & London Irish for a few years.
Their turnover and wage bill is upper-midtable for the Prem. That should be sustainable; just so long as they make their cuts to suit the cloth.
Yes, they'll lose some big names; but probably keep their academy graduates (or just lose them for a year) - which brings them back in line with the rest of the premiership.

That’s my point- Wray will walk and I think that will bu55er them.

[Peej]

Hasn't Wray already walked though, or is looking to?

[Banquo]

Hasn't Wray already walked though, or is looking to?

He hasn’t taken his money away.

[Which Tyler]

That’s my point- Wray will walk and I think that will bu55er them.

It'll bugger them down to being a mid-table Premiership team - how terrible for them - to be just like 8 other clubs.

Equally, isn't part of the point of the cap to prevent clubs from (excessively) overextending themselves, so that if the sugar daddy loses interest, then the losses are "manageable". If they've put themselves into "unmanageable" because they've ignored the salary cap; spending an extra £2M, then their excess costs are £2M more than they're supposed to be... I didn't feel sorry for London Welsh when they collapsed due to being managed badly (sorry for the fans and players, but not the club per se) - I'm not about to for Sarries (again, sympathy for the fans and players, but notht e club per se).

Absent Wray, and Saracens turnover and overall wages are broadly average for the Prem. That makes them just as sustainable as anyone else.



Just a quick addition on the "This will kill the game in England" and "This will kill Saracens"
Plenty of other leagues have survived one of their biggest participants being relegated.
The only thing that will do either (both) of those is relegating Sarries AND ringfencing the Prem.

[Banquo]

That’s my point- Wray will walk and I think that will bu55er them.

It'll bugger them down to being a mid-table Premiership team - how terrible for them - to be just like 8 other clubs.


Just a quick addition on the "This will kill the game in England" and "This will kill Saracens"
Plenty of other leagues have survived one of their biggest participants being relegated.
The only thing that will do either (both) of those is relegating Sarries AND ringfencing the Prem.

Without seeing their finances we are both guessing I suppose, but my money would be on them going bust if relegated.

[Which Tyler]

Without seeing their finances we are both guessing I suppose, but my money would be on them going bust if relegated.

If they can't make the necessary cuts, then maybe.
If you can't do the time...

Oh, and this is what I was basing my turnover and salary figures on, albeit from just over a year ago: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... nd-verdict

[Banquo]

Without seeing their finances we are both guessing I suppose, but my money would be on them going bust if relegated.

If they can't make the necessary cuts, then maybe.
If you can't do the time...

Oh, and this is what I was basing my turnover and salary figures on, albeit from just over a year ago: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/ ... nd-verdict

In no way am I making the point that they don’t deserve punishment. I think it’s a blow for the domestic game if they are relegated for many reasons.

Even that three year old data shows you the enormous debt they have, and doesn’t show their cash flow, which I’d suspect is underwritten by Wray. There has to be a big risk of disappearing.

[fivepointer]

Just seen this from Owen Slot, "Saracens’ breach of the salary cap rules was so extensive that they initially agreed to cut their total wages by £2 million by the end of the month.

The club may now have to accept automatic relegation at the end of this season because it is pretty much impossible for them to meet their pledge to cut costs so extensively"

Saracens seemed to have given an undertaking that they would get their house in order for this season otherwise the points deduction could have been greater.
Losing £2M by end of January was some target, one that may not have been possible to reach.
But that much over the cap to start with. Well.......

[Puja]

Well, that would be one way of fitting the 13 teams quart into the ringfenced 12 team pint pot.

Puja

[hugh_woatmeigh]

Just seen this from Owen Slot, "Saracens’ breach of the salary cap rules was so extensive that they initially agreed to cut their total wages by £2 million by the end of the month.

The club may now have to accept automatic relegation at the end of this season because it is pretty much impossible for them to meet their pledge to cut costs so extensively"

Saracens seemed to have given an undertaking that they would get their house in order for this season otherwise the points deduction could have been greater.
Losing £2M by end of January was some target, one that may not have been possible to reach.
But that much over the cap to start with. Well.......

If this is true why did they resign players like Skelton in positions of strength who were aggressively being pursued by parties like the ARU prior to the WC? They'd have known about this a few months ago.

It's hard to feel ANY sympathy for them at all.

It looks both intentional and moronic.

[Peej]

Mail currently reporting that: 'Sarries were told they either had to hand back their titles won in the three years they have been proven to have broken the cap, and let auditors fully investigate club finances, or face the drop to the Championship in June.'

And apparently Sarries have tried to offload players, but as they've pissed off agents (by previously cutting them out) and the other clubs (and the fact they re mostly up to cap), no-one is playing ball