17 key points of the damning Saracens salary cap report
Premiership Rugby opted to publicly publish the salary cap report on Thursday following the withdrawal of Saracens’ formal opposition to its publication (click here).
The document that Premiership Rugby published was reportedly the same version of the decision shared in confidence with the other member clubs in recent weeks.
However, in order to respect the privacy of personal information, this published document omits the names of players and other information that could be used to identify individuals. It insists that no other information has since been redacted from the report. Here are its key points according to Press Association:
1. Saracens were alleged by Premiership Rugby’s salary cap manager Andrew Rogers to have exceeded the cap by £1,134,968.60 in 2016-17 and £140,249 in 2017-18. For 2018-19, the figure was £960,505.57. The panel determined the overspend to be £1,134,968.60 in 2016-17, £98,249.80 in 2017-18 and £906,505.57.
2. Saracens challenged the decision on the basis that a salary cap is anti-competitive, but the report says in paragraph 50 that the candid acceptance of the need for a salary cap under cross-examination by chief executive Mitesh Velani and owner Nigel Wray “puts the final nail in the coffin of Saracens’ case on (the cap being an anti-competitive) object”.
(Continue reading below…)
Finn Russell warned he must make the first move to salvage Scotland career
3. The panel found in paragraph 60 that Saracens’ evidence to support the argument that a salary cap had an anti-competitive effect was “decidedly limited”, and pointed out that a written statement from Velani on the matter had “largely been copied verbatim” from an earlier submission by former CEO Edward Griffiths from an earlier, settled salary cap case in 2015.
4. Paragraph 95 says Saracens were in favour of a salary cap and that seems to have been the case until at least 2014 when the club along with others voted in changes to the regulations to come into effect from 2015-16 onwards.
5. Referencing a quote from Wray, the panel wrote in paragraph 100: “We entirely understand why Mr Wray thinks there should be a salary cap. It is an obvious means of bringing under control a major risk to the viability of professional rugby.”
"My intention with co-investments was always to support players beyond their playing careers."https://t.co/mOxya4nit8
— RugbyPass (@RugbyPass) January 23, 2020
6. Paragraph 106: “In our (the panel’s) view, it is the case that the salary cap has operated and continues to operate in a pro-competitive manner.”
7. In paragraph 111 the panel rejected Saracens’ competition law challenge to the charge.
8. In paragraph 142 the panel says it felt Rogers took a “reasonable approach” that only in exceptional or unusual circumstances should payments or benefits conferred on a player by a club’s ‘connected party’ be excluded from salary.
Here's one reason why Saracens' squad depth allowed them to steal a match on their rivals https://t.co/Ri8h7M7N6Q
— RugbyPass (@RugbyPass) January 21, 2020
9. In paragraph 151 the report quotes Rogers from his witness statement, referring to 2016-17 co-investment arrangements. He says: “There has been a concerted and deliberate attempt to create structures that supposedly take that reward outside the ambit of salary.”
10. In paragraph 179 the panel state: “We are confident these capital contributions were salary.”
11. In paragraph 209 it refers to an arrangement between events company MBN and an unnamed player. MBN paid a total of £95,000 to the unnamed player across 2016-17 to 2018-19, but Saracens failed to disclose a copy of the agreement to the salary cap manager and no evidence was supplied by Saracens to show any events that the unnamed player had attended to warrant the payments. Velani and Wray apologised for this oversight.
The interview that everyone wanted to hear after their feisty Twitter exchange
https://t.co/O6IynQTcgr— RugbyPass (@RugbyPass) January 21, 2020
12. In outlining Premiership Rugby’s case for sanction in paragraph 274, Rogers is quoted saying: “I disagree with the suggestion that the club has been open and transparent. In a number of ways, Saracens has over the years been reckless in its approach to the salary cap and the related rules and has frequently crossed the line into breach. At best, the club appears to accept the risk of breaching it.
13. Paragraphs 275 states that “PRL submits that there is no basis for decreasing sanctions that would result in a strict application of the table set out in Regulations 14.3 (c).”
14. Paragraph 276 states that PRL says that the table should be applied separately to each of the three salary cap years. “The charge contains allegations in the three years compendiously because the breaches were concealed from Mr Rogers by Saracens. Otherwise, each year would have been the subject of a separate charge.”
New Zealand Rugby say they are open to more English players representing Kiwi sides in Super Rugby.https://t.co/PkArmBrJ8l
— RugbyPass (@RugbyPass) January 24, 2020
15. In paragraph 296 it states: “It follows if we were to accept PRL’s submissions and apply a strict mathematical approach cumulatively to each of the three salary cap years, we would impose the following sanctions: A fine of £5,360,272.31 and a deduction of 70 points.
16. In paragraph 304, it states that Saracens’ 2015 settlement over salary cap matters was “a clear yellow card” and “the onus was then plainly on it to ensure that it stayed firmly within the regulations”.
17. In paragraph 319 the panel state a 70-point deduction would be “disproportionate”. “We are conscious that the breaches were not deliberate,” it adds.
– Press Association
WATCH: Eddie Jones insists the Saracens scandal could be beneficial to England
Comments on RugbyPass
We’re building a bridge but can't agree where the river is.
2 Go to commentsfirst no arms shoulder or helmet tackle into his rib cage is going to be so very painful even to watch. go back to RU mate.
1 Go to commentsBulls by 5. Plus another 50.
3 Go to commentsJohan Goosen avatar. Cute. Surely someone at RP knows how to do a google image search?
3 Go to commentsCan’t these games play a little earlier? Asking for a friend.
3 Go to commentsIt’s impressive that we can see huge stadiums with attendance in the 40 000 to 50 000 region. It shows how popular this competition is becoming. What is even more impressive is the massive growth in broadcast viewership. The URC is one of the two best leagues in the World, the other being the Top14.
7 Go to commentsChristie is not Sottish, like the majority of the Scotland team.
2 Go to commentsHold the phone, decline over-rated. Is it a one game, dead cat bounce or the real thing? Has the Penney dropped? Stay tuned.
45 Go to commentsTotally deserved win for the Crusaders Far smarter than the Chiefs who seem to be avoiding the basics when it matters Hotham showed them what was missing and Hannah seems a real find - a tad light but that can be fixed over time
8 Go to commentsGreat insight into the performance culture with Sarries and I predict Christie will be a fixture in the Scotland team now for some time to come. However, he is slightly missing his own point around Scotland “being soft” when he cites physicality examples in defence of that slight. The issue is much closer to the example he referenced around feeling off before a game but being told “it doesn’t matter, you can still play well” by Farrell. Until Scotland can get their psyche in that square, they will carry on folding under extreme pressure…
2 Go to comments> We are having to adapt, evolve and innovate more than when we were in Super Rugby where there was only really one style that everybody had to play to gain the most success. Have = able to? Interesting what that one style might be? I thought SA sides still had bad tours now, or at least bad schedule, months away? Those extra few hours flights have to be a killer though, no surprise to see their sides doing so badly at the start of the season each year. I wouldn’t enjoy that unfairness as a supporter.
7 Go to commentsThe problem for NZ, and Aus, is they ripped up the SR model and lost a massive chunk of revenue that hasn’t been replaced. Don’t forget SA clubs went North because they were left with no choice, Argy unceremoniously binned and Japan cast adrift. Now SR wasn’t perfect, far from it, but they’ve jumped into something without an effective plan, so far, to replace what they’ve lost. The biggest revenue potential now lies in Japan but it won’t be easy or quick to unlock, they are incredibly insular in culture as a nation. In the meantime, there is a serious time bomb sitting under SH rugby and if it happens then the current financial challenges will look like a picnic. IF the Boks follow their provincial teams and head north then it’s revenue meltdown. Not guaranteed to happen but the status quo is a very odd hybrid, with the Boks pointing one way and the clubs pointing the other way. And for as long as that remains then the threat is real.
45 Go to commentsI think Etene has had some good tuition, likely while at the Warriors to be a professional that helped his rugby jump, but he was certainly thrown in the deep end way too early. Should have arguably 20 less SR caps, and therefor a way better record that he does at his age, but his development would have been fast tracked by the need to satiate his signing away from league. Again, credit to him and others that he has done it so well. Easy to fall over under that pressure in the big leagues like that but he kept at it when I myself wasn’t sure he was good enough.
1 Go to commentsAwesome story. I wonder what a bigger American (SA) scene might have mean for Brex.
1 Go to comments“Johnny McNicholl and the Crusaders” save a Penney. Who has been in camp this week and showed them how to play?
8 Go to commentsSo, reports of the Crusaders’ demise / terminal decline are perhaps just - slightly - premature/exaggerated…? 🤔 Will we see a deep-dive into that by the estimable Rugbypass scribes, and maybe one or two mea culpas? Thought not.
8 Go to comments1. The Chiefs are rudderless without DMac, which enhances his AB chances 2. Chiefs pack are powderpuffs. The hard men arent there anymore 3. They had their golden title chance last yr and wont threaten this yr. Gone in second round of playoffs.
8 Go to commentsHonestly, why did you have to publish such a foolish article the day they play us? 😂
45 Go to comments> They are not standalone entities. They are linked to an amateur association which holds the FFR licence that allows the professional side to compete in the league. That’s a great rule. This looks like the chicken or egg professional scenario. How long is it going to be before the club can break even (if that is even a thing in French rugby)? If the locals aren’t into well it would be good to se them drop to amateur level (is it that far?). Hope they can reset from this level and be more practical, there will be a time when they can rebuild (if France has there setup right).
1 Go to commentsWhat about changing the ball? To something heavier and more pointed that bounces unpredictably. Not this almost round football used these days.
35 Go to comments