Are Saracens about to get automatically relegated?

[Mellsblue]

Sarries have just released their team for Quins and I think we’ve got our answer as to what sort of team they’ll be putting out for the rest of the season. Not an England international is sight. I thought they might want to shut up the noisy neighbours but it seems not.

Dunno- that’s full strength given the intls are away

Mea culpa.

[Mellsblue]

I've got to agree here - PRL SEEM to be making it up on the fly, (though I guess they could have enforced the forensic audit - and I still wonder if the RFU will do that bit). I was perfectly happy thinking that the previously-waived 35 point deduction had been added; even in conjunction with another 35 (or whatever) points for the current year - making relegation 100% confirmed; but it SEEMS that they've just decided to relegate, with nothing like that applied.
Equally - I would LIKE to see the Prem titles removed from Sarries - whether or not they're given to Exeter, the record should show that Saracens didn't win them. Also I don't see why there's an upper cap on what the points deduction can be. But if that wasn't in the extant regulations, then it can't be done. Re-write the regulations going forwards; but you can't just apply that retrospectively.

Of course, there may be something in there about "and any other punishment deemed appropriate by a supermajority of PRL stakeholders" which would cover this; but...

That’s the strange thing. From what’s been reported, they (the other 12 PRL) can get what they want by sticking to the rules. So, why do this? A lot of it seems to be driven by revenge/emotion which I can understand but isn’t the way to deal with this.
If Sarries can keep the core of their squad together, this might actually suit them in the long run. If PRL had deducted another 35 points off next season it would’ve been another season of fighting relegation and having to play in the Challenge Cup. This way they get a nice little mid-career breather and come back even stronger.

Depends on whether someone is prepared to fund them and/or they can get sides to take a number of the big money fellas on a year long loan.

Most outlets are reporting that the core Eng players are staying after reassurances from Jones and Gatland. I’d imagine next season’s team will look a lot like their team for this weekend - probably/possibly minus Isiekwe, Lozowski and Singleton - with the England boys rotating through. If so, they’d win the Champ at a canter.

[Oakboy]

Has the GP confirmed that ONLY Saracens will be relegated?

[Banquo]

That’s the strange thing. From what’s been reported, they (the other 12 PRL) can get what they want by sticking to the rules. So, why do this? A lot of it seems to be driven by revenge/emotion which I can understand but isn’t the way to deal with this.
If Sarries can keep the core of their squad together, this might actually suit them in the long run. If PRL had deducted another 35 points off next season it would’ve been another season of fighting relegation and having to play in the Challenge Cup. This way they get a nice little mid-career breather and come back even stronger.

Depends on whether someone is prepared to fund them and/or they can get sides to take a number of the big money fellas on a year long loan.

Most outlets are reporting that the core Eng players are staying after reassurances from Jones and Gatland. I’d imagine next season’s team will look a lot like their team for this weekend - probably/possibly minus Isiekwe, Lozowski and Singleton - with the England boys rotating through. If so, they’d win the Champ at a canter.

They need a lot of cash from someone then

[Mellsblue]

Depends on whether someone is prepared to fund them and/or they can get sides to take a number of the big money fellas on a year long loan.

Most outlets are reporting that the core Eng players are staying after reassurances from Jones and Gatland. I’d imagine next season’s team will look a lot like their team for this weekend - probably/possibly minus Isiekwe, Lozowski and Singleton - with the England boys rotating through. If so, they’d win the Champ at a canter.

They need a lot of cash from someone then

Yep and/or some clever ways of generating some.

[Timbo]

Would be good if PRL set out exactly on what basis Saracens are being relegated.

I thought that Sarries had chosen to be relegated. Sarries gave assuranaces they would be under the cap for this season, then they say we can't get under the cap, PRL say "ok, allow us to do to a forensic audit (& give up titles) or be relegated". Sarries agree to relegation because an audit would be finicially stressful (or whatever bollocks it was they came out with) thus agreeing to the financial hard ship and stress that the Championship brings.

So the basis is they chose it & it should be two years.

A poster, Tigersince74 on the sportsnetwork site posted this after they got hold of the 19/20 regs:

"15 Promoted Club

15.1 A Promoted Club shall, within 28 days of receiving confirmation of promotion to the Gallagher Premiership from PRL, comply with the requirements of Regulation 4.4 by providing to the Salary Cap Manager the documents listed in Regulation 4.4.

15.2 A Promoted Club shall provide copies of its Declaration for the 2018-19 Salary Cap Year and its Certification for the 2017-18 Salary Cap Year as required under Regulations 4.2 and 4.3."

Spot the error the dates were not changed from one year to the next! It should read for the end of this season the promoted club provides copies of its declaration of complying with the salary cap 19/20 and certification of the previous year 18/19.

The new regs for next season 20/21 are usually published in February so not long to wait. It is normally compliance in the promotion year and the previous year

If Saracens finish top 20/21 they will need to be compliant in the successful Championship season and the previous year 19/20 which they failed and elected to be relegated.

Compliance with the Salary Cap regulations is part of the Professional Game Board Minimum Standards Criteria. Good luck finding these since London Welsh took them on

The first bit is just your inference after a few quotes from Tony Rowe, some press reports and a few vague statements. Nowhere has it been officially stated that Saracens would/could not be under cap for this season. Given their previous indiscretions were of a one off payment nature it’s not inconceivable they could have been ok this year. Who knows? Ed Griffith’s said a couple of weeks ago they would make whatever changes necessary, then literally a handful of days later there is a board meeting and they’re accepting relegation...

The second bit about Sarries having to be compliant for 2 seasons is a simple mis-reading of the regulations. They need to provide all documents, contract details and payments arrangements for TWO seasons (presumably to ensure they havn’t front loaded a load of contracts), but only necessary to actually be under cap for the season they’re promoted.

[Tigersman]

Here's a question I don't think was asked.
Do people feel that teams wouldn't have spent as much in the off season if it was known that Sarries was going to get relegated?

Mainly thinking off London Irish.
Would Irish have preferred to use younger players than say spending 900,000 on Coleman.

[Puja]

Here's a question I don't think was asked.
Do people feel that teams wouldn't have spent as much in the off season if it was known that Sarries was going to get relegated?

Mainly thinking off London Irish.
Would Irish have preferred to use younger players than say spending 900,000 on Coleman.

That is a fair point - much as we malign Irish for signing in a cavalcade of foreign mediocrity, they were signing with an aim for immediate survival. Without relegation, they probably wouldn't have signed quite so many.

I mean, they still would have signed a lot of them - Irish gonna Irish.

Puja

[Oakboy]

I've read several bits suggesting that the salary cap should not apply to players produced by the clubs own academy. That seems reasonable on first consideration. What is the counter-argument?

I also read that Spencer is going to Bath on loan amid comments from Saracens that their star England players are attracting no interest. That just confirms my opinion that rugby has to get away from the ridiculous situation whereby GP games are played during international periods.

[Which Tyler]

I think amlarger dispensation is needed for academy products - but completely outside the campus too far.
We want to make it easier tomkeep academy products you want to, rather than being asset stripped by anwealthier club. We (or I) don't want to make the premiership uncompetitive because someone has a more productive academy (be it due to funding 10 years previously, luck, or simply having a larger / more rugby oriented caption area).

Personally, I'd do something like 10% of any academy product's wages and outside the cap (defining academy product as within your system by their 18th birthday, and has continued with the club). Enough that anyone wanting to outspend you has to do so significantly, but not enough to remove all competition for players, and not enough to make a mockery of the cap's intent to provide a (relatively) level playing field.



As for Sarries' England contingent - is that new news? Or the repeat of the complaint a couple of weeks ago?
We had more-or-less got away from club/country clashes with the pointless cup taking place during the windows - RWC got in thenway this year.
Sarries specifically, were trying to offload players too late, when clubs don't have much room in their own caps to take on too much. They could also only offer reduced contracts to players who don't want to move in the first place - as they're being overpaid and DO seem to have a good atmosphere at Saracens. Of course. The players mostly want to still play for Saracen's when they return to the Prem, so only want a 1 season deal and then return - which isn't great for future planning for the other clubs. Plus, of course, there's the element in the other clubs that doesn't want to do Saracens any and help bail them out.

[Stom]

I think amlarger dispensation is needed for academy products - but completely outside the campus too far.
We want to make it easier tomkeep academy products you want to, rather than being asset stripped by anwealthier club. We (or I) don't want to make the premiership uncompetitive because someone has a more productive academy (be it due to funding 10 years previously, luck, or simply having a larger / more rugby oriented caption area).

Personally, I'd do something like 10% of any academy product's wages and outside the cap (defining academy product as within your system by their 18th birthday, and has continued with the club). Enough that anyone wanting to outspend you has to do so significantly, but not enough to remove all competition for players, and not enough to make a mockery of the cap's intent to provide a (relatively) level playing field.



As for Sarries' England contingent - is that new news? Or the repeat of the complaint a couple of weeks ago?
We had more-or-less got away from club/country clashes with the pointless cup taking place during the windows - RWC got in thenway this year.
Sarries specifically, were trying to offload players too late, when clubs don't have much room in their own caps to take on too much. They could also only offer reduced contracts to players who don't want to move in the first place - as they're being overpaid and DO seem to have a good atmosphere at Saracens. Of course. The players mostly want to still play for Saracen's when they return to the Prem, so only want a 1 season deal and then return - which isn't great for future planning for the other clubs. Plus, of course, there's the element in the other clubs that doesn't want to do Saracens any and help bail them out.

What's the current rate? Isn't it something like £30k/player? up to £300k.

And it doesn't matter what their wage is, so Quins will get £30k dispensation for Sinckler and for Lamb, when the former is on more than £300k, and the latter is likely on less than £100k.

In your system, Quins would get less extra cap than under the current system.

EDIT:

Looked up the regs, it's up to £600k for homegrown! At up to £50k each.

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).

I mean... Sarries got their full £7m, plus £80k each for Mako, George, Itoje, Kruis, Billy, Farrell, Daly. Some %age of £80k for Isiekwe, Spencer, Wigglesworth, Lozowski.

[Stom]

And there's more: they get £10k/match for every missed AP or European match for every non-England international player.

That means more money for Carre, Koch, Lamositele, Maitland, Taylor and more?


Back to the academy credits...

I think £50k/player up to £600k is absolutely plenty.

But maybe it should be on top of the £7m.

It's not going to cover the wages of a George, Sinckler, Itoje, May, Farrell, Ford, etc., but it's going to cover a decent chunk of their wages.

More than 10% in some cases.

[Raggs]

The cap is 6.4m the 7m figure includes the academy cap.

[Which Tyler]

Courtesy of Bath season ticket holders' Q&A yesterday:


"The salary cap people wanted to talk individually with every Sarries player to find out exactly how much they are/were paid. Sarries refused, so they got demoted. He also said this may not be be finished yet there will be more to come out.
No other team is being investigated all other teams talk and discuss their cap all of the time with them so they are happy with those. Sarries have never had those conversations. All club owners had a long discussion a few years ago that they would all abide by the cap and all shook hands on it. That's why all the other owners are really pee'd off with Wray"

[Raggs]

Think the moment there were those small fines on Wasps and Quins, for overrun due to small administrative issues, I trusted a bit more in the system.

[Digby]

Courtesy of Bath season ticket holders' Q&A yesterday:


"The salary cap people wanted to talk individually with every Sarries player to find out exactly how much they are/were paid. Sarries refused, so they got demoted. He also said this may not be be finished yet there will be more to come out.
No other team is being investigated all other teams talk and discuss their cap all of the time with them so they are happy with those. Sarries have never had those conversations. All club owners had a long discussion a few years ago that they would all abide by the cap and all shook hands on it. That's why all the other owners are really pee'd off with Wray"

If true that's Sarries taking responsibility for their cheating in part and not putting their players into a Tom Williams scenario of trying to present alternative facts.

[Timbo]

Courtesy of Bath season ticket holders' Q&A yesterday:


"The salary cap people wanted to talk individually with every Sarries player to find out exactly how much they are/were paid. Sarries refused, so they got demoted. He also said this may not be be finished yet there will be more to come out.
No other team is being investigated all other teams talk and discuss their cap all of the time with them so they are happy with those. Sarries have never had those conversations. All club owners had a long discussion a few years ago that they would all abide by the cap and all shook hands on it. That's why all the other owners are really pee'd off with Wray"

Who was answering the questions?

[Which Tyler]

Who was answering the questions?

IIRC, Tarquin McDonald - CEO

[Eugene Wrayburn]

First. A group can decide to amend their regulations if they all agree. Thus since Sarries agree to be relegated and unsurprisingly everyone else agrees they should too there's no issue with whether the regulations did or didn't allow relegation before. The mechanism is only interesting to geeks like us and therefore unlikely to be the subject of a press release.

Second, I don't really see the point in having any person developed by the club from academy and continually employed by them included in the cap. You definitely want to stop people from buying the GP by waving a big wallet at the best. Do you really want to stop them from, er... investing in their academy and nurturing them and encouraging them to stay at the club as long as possible?

[Stom]

First. A group can decide to amend their regulations if they all agree. Thus since Sarries agree to be relegated and unsurprisingly everyone else agrees they should too there's no issue with whether the regulations did or didn't allow relegation before. The mechanism is only interesting to geeks like us and therefore unlikely to be the subject of a press release.

Second, I don't really see the point in having any person developed by the club from academy and continually employed by them included in the cap. You definitely want to stop people from buying the GP by waving a big wallet at the best. Do you really want to stop them from, er... investing in their academy and nurturing them and encouraging them to stay at the club as long as possible?

There’d need to be something in place to prevent rich teams from just stealing the best academy talent, though,

Otherwise teams like Sarries could just poach players at 19, stick them in their academy and then promote into a giant contract all outside the cap.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

First. A group can decide to amend their regulations if they all agree. Thus since Sarries agree to be relegated and unsurprisingly everyone else agrees they should too there's no issue with whether the regulations did or didn't allow relegation before. The mechanism is only interesting to geeks like us and therefore unlikely to be the subject of a press release.

Second, I don't really see the point in having any person developed by the club from academy and continually employed by them included in the cap. You definitely want to stop people from buying the GP by waving a big wallet at the best. Do you really want to stop them from, er... investing in their academy and nurturing them and encouraging them to stay at the club as long as possible?

There’d need to be something in place to prevent rich teams from just stealing the best academy talent, though,

Otherwise teams like Sarries could just poach players at 19, stick them in their academy and then promote into a giant contract all outside the cap.

Though they'd have to find the best players and develop them better than anyone else and have to persuade them to come to north London at 19. It's also extremely difficult to do that (in England) for someone who is going to be 2nd or 3rd choice at academy level. Basically it would be a vast improvement on the current situation.

[Raggs]

If you don't include academy players in the cap, then that leaves a club like Saracens a lot cap to spend on fewer players to fill in the gaps, and therefore still with a big advantage over a side without as many academy products (for whatever reason).

[Stom]

First. A group can decide to amend their regulations if they all agree. Thus since Sarries agree to be relegated and unsurprisingly everyone else agrees they should too there's no issue with whether the regulations did or didn't allow relegation before. The mechanism is only interesting to geeks like us and therefore unlikely to be the subject of a press release.

Second, I don't really see the point in having any person developed by the club from academy and continually employed by them included in the cap. You definitely want to stop people from buying the GP by waving a big wallet at the best. Do you really want to stop them from, er... investing in their academy and nurturing them and encouraging them to stay at the club as long as possible?

There’d need to be something in place to prevent rich teams from just stealing the best academy talent, though,

Otherwise teams like Sarries could just poach players at 19, stick them in their academy and then promote into a giant contract all outside the cap.

Though they'd have to find the best players and develop them better than anyone else and have to persuade them to come to north London at 19. It's also extremely difficult to do that (in England) for someone who is going to be 2nd or 3rd choice at academy level. Basically it would be a vast improvement on the current situation.

I kind of agree, but it’s still a sticking point. Plus with the defined catchment areas like they are, it’s not a particularly fair system.

So it’d need a method around that.

Instead just increase the cap credits to 1.5m or even more. That’d get Quins, for instance, Sinckler, Smith, Ibitoye, Murley and the Chisholms.

[Mellsblue]

If you don't include academy players in the cap, then that leaves a club like Saracens a lot cap to spend on fewer players to fill in the gaps, and therefore still with a big advantage over a side without as many academy products (for whatever reason).

Fine with that. Clubs are rewarded for the number of Prem quality players they produce. Seems like a good idea to me. The only issue is catchment areas. Some are a lot better than others. For example, from what I’ve read and heard, Northampton have possibly the worst catchment area for reasons beyond their control - lack of private schools and general pop. This would need to be taken into account somehow.

[Mellsblue]

First. A group can decide to amend their regulations if they all agree. Thus since Sarries agree to be relegated and unsurprisingly everyone else agrees they should too there's no issue with whether the regulations did or didn't allow relegation before. The mechanism is only interesting to geeks like us and therefore unlikely to be the subject of a press release.

Second, I don't really see the point in having any person developed by the club from academy and continually employed by them included in the cap. You definitely want to stop people from buying the GP by waving a big wallet at the best. Do you really want to stop them from, er... investing in their academy and nurturing them and encouraging them to stay at the club as long as possible?

Agree wholly with your second point but not with your first. For all that I think Sarries should be punished, there are rules and regs for a reason. I think it sets a dangerous precedent. Even more so when a trial by your rivals seems to supersede the (expensive) advice of a big legal brain(s). The whole thing has been a shambles from Sarries taking the piss to the Prem clubs making up punishments on the back of a fag packet.