Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

'Surprised' Saracens hit back at Premiership claim over publication of infamous report

(Photo by Harry Trump/Getty Images)

Saracens say they are “keen” for the disciplinary report into their salary cap breaches to be published in full.

ADVERTISEMENT

Premiership Rugby announced last weekend that the reigning English and European champions will be relegated from the Premiership at the end of this season in response to their failure to comply with salary cap regulations for the current campaign.

They were docked 35 league points and fined £5.36million in November for breaking the salary cap in the 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19 seasons, but the dossier of an investigation led by Lord Dyson into those breaches has so far not been released.

Speaking on Tuesday, Premiership Rugby chief executive Darren Childs said Saracens would need to agree for the report to be published.

Continue reading below…

WATCH: Andy Goode and Brendan Venter didn’t hold back on this weeks pod as they discussed Saracens and the salary cap scandal.

Video Spacer

“It would take agreement with Saracens, which they’ve withheld, for us to publish,” Childs said. “We can’t publish it without their approval.”

But in a message to supporters published on the Saracens official website, the club’s chairman Neil Golding said: “With regards to the publication of the disciplinary panel’s full report, I am surprised by the suggestion that Saracens are objecting to the publication of the report.

ADVERTISEMENT

“Since my appointment on January 9, I have spent considerable time in discussions with PRL (Premiership Rugby Limited) and nobody has asked me what my position is on the matter.

“To confirm, we are keen for the report to be published in full, and I made PRL aware of this earlier today. It will provide much needed context and clarity.”

Reflecting on the situation, Golding, who succeeded Nigel Wray as Saracens chairman, added: “Prior to my time here, there were discussions with PRL in relation to conducting a mid-season audit spanning several seasons.

“It would be fair to say that other PRL stakeholders were sceptical about our compliance with such an audit.

ADVERTISEMENT

“We carefully considered the option of a full investigatory audit.

“However, that inevitably would have involved a long period of more financial and emotional strain, and this in turn meant this was not a viable option for us.

“We therefore agreed with PRL on relegation in the hope that we could draw a line under the mistakes made by Saracens with respect to compliance with the regulations and concentrate on putting our new robust procedures in place.”

PA

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 11

Chasing The Sun | Series 1 Episode 1

Abbie Ward: A Bump in the Road

Pacific Four Series 2024 | Canada vs USA

Japan Rugby League One | Verblitz v Eagles | Full Match Replay

Fresh Starts | Episode 2 | Sam Whitelock

Royal Navy Men v Royal Air Force Men | Full Match Replay

Royal Navy Women v Royal Air Force Women | Full Match Replay

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

J
Jon 7 hours ago
The case for keeping the Melbourne Rebels in Super Rugby Pacific

I have heard it asked if RA is essentially one of the part owners and I suppose therefor should be on the other side of these two parties. If they purchased the rebels and guaranteed them, and are responsible enough they incur Rebels penalties, where is this line drawn? Seems rough to have to pay a penalty for something were your involvement sees you on the side of the conned party, the creditors. If the Rebels directors themselves have given the club their money, 6mil worth right, why aren’t they also listed as sitting with RA and the Tax office? And the legal threat was either way, new Rebels or defunct, I can’t see how RA assume the threat was less likely enough to warrant comment about it in this article. Surely RA ignore that and only worry about whether they can defend it or not, which they have reported as being comfortable with. So in effect wouldn’t it be more accurate to say there is no further legal threat (or worry) in denying the deal. Unless the directors have reneged on that. > Returns of a Japanese team or even Argentinean side, the Jaguares, were said to be on the cards, as were the ideas of standing up brand new teams in Hawaii or even Los Angeles – crazy ideas that seemingly forgot the time zone issues often cited as a turn-off for viewers when the competition contained teams from South Africa. Those timezones are great for SR and are what will probably be needed to unlock its future (cant see it remaining without _atleast _help from Aus), day games here are night games on the West Coast of america, were potential viewers triple, win win. With one of the best and easiest ways to unlock that being to play games or a host a team there. Less good the further across Aus you get though. Jaguares wouldn’t be the same Jaguares, but I still would think it’s better having them than keeping the Rebels. The other options aren’t really realistic 25’ options, no. From reading this authors last article I think if the new board can get the investment they seem to be confident in, you keeping them simply for the amount of money they’ll be investing in the game. Then ditch them later if they’re not good enough without such a high budget. Use them to get Jaguares reintergration stronger, with more key players on board, and have success drive success.

22 Go to comments
TRENDING
TRENDING New Zealand U20 score in dying minutes to draw with South Africa U20 New Zealand U20 and South Africa U20 draw
Search