Rugby glory being bought by the Rich- Help save the game!

[Tigerbeat]

There is no restriction of trade by enforcing the salary cap. The League belongs to PR and they organise and make the rules. If teams dont want to comply with the rules then they have choices; either take the punishment, comply or leave.

As I was told in my youth, whilst you are living under our roof you must live by our rules.

[TomWeston]

The difference with Tigers is that we aren't relying on them and appear to be nicely self sustaining even having recently built the Cat/GNC/Met-RX stand. Name a rugby club in the British Isles who own a better home ground - or one with as much potential? Training facilities?

Nicely self sustaining but in debt, which is a sea-anchor on future finances. As well as the probability of billionaires circumventing the salary cap there is the additional slope on the playing field of finance for ground expansion. The government gave £12.6 million to expand Ravenhill. Tigers could do with £12.6 million to expand WR.

[h's dad]

There is no restriction of trade by enforcing the salary cap. The League belongs to PR and they organise and make the rules. If teams dont want to comply with the rules then they have choices; either take the punishment, comply or leave.

As I was told in my youth, whilst you are living under our roof you must live by our rules.

With respect I think you might have the right answer if not necessarily for the right reasons!

The salary cap regulations specify that any disputes are referred to Sports Resolutions UK for final and binding arbitration in accordance with the Arbitration Act 1996 with certain specified caveats. I don’t know but I think it is reasonable to assume that some competent arbitration expertise went into this.

Restraint of trade could be argued but I don’t think it would succeed for a number of clear reasons and would result in the club bearing all costs pursuant to the regulations (just my non-legal opinion).

Any suggestion forbidding recourse in the event of a dispute is bound to fail.

I’m not sure that simply throwing the most money at a case will buy you the result you want. It’s not my experience in this country anyway.

The PRL got its fingers burnt when LW came up the first time but that seems to be different as LW were complaining about the lack of a level playing field whereas the salary cap is about preserving it.

Perhaps a little off the wall but as I understand it, the AP salary cap only applies to the AP. Could a club where money is no object contract players purely for competitions where there is no salary cap and keep them outside of their AP squads?

[Big Dai]

My nightmare scenario would be the not the righteous banding together but the super rich banding together and forming some form of European "Break Away" Premiership, everything else would then be middle or lower tier.

A Midland franchise set up in Coventry using the poorer Welford Road and Franklins Gardens outfits......whatever they will be called..as feeder clubs?? Brrrrrr <Devil Crosses Grave!>

..........Never eat cheese late in the evening!

[voice of the crumbie]

Perhaps a little off the wall but as I understand it, the AP salary cap only applies to the AP. Could a club where money is no object contract players purely for competitions where there is no salary cap and keep them outside of their AP squads?

Not sure if that is possible but if it were it would be fraught with difficulties under present arrangements. 4 difficulties spring immediately to mind.

1. International release for England qualified players. The current agreement with the RFU is (I believe) with the umbrella body PRL rather than individual clubs. So, if clubs have players that don't fall under the umbrella agreement (because they don't play the in the premiership),separate arrangements for their release would have to be made with the RFU either with individual clubs or some new umbrella group that represents these players. I don't believe the RFU would want to have a further agreement which could, in theory, operate under different terms to that with PRL. That would surely be a logistical and administrative nightmare.

2. Take a scenario in which a club has players contracted purely for competitions that are not the premiership. I'm making the assumption that such players would be those that currently earn the most because they are internationals, British Lions, marquee players etc. For lack of a better term let's call them the elite players at any club. To have such a group would lead to a 2 tier system among the playing staff - the elite and the rest - or 3 tier if you bring academies into the equation. I'm also assuming the elite would benefit by not having to play so many games with all the advantages that brings. In other words you would have the very scenario that appertained under the old Heineken Cup where teams in the Pro 12 were able to rest players and thereby gain advantage over other teams who could not. Would this not lead to 2 problems? Firstly resentment from the clubs that couldn't afford to do this and secondly resentment from the players below the elite tier who would be slogging their guts out week in and out in the Premiership to qualify for Europe so that the elite could turn up and usurp their places in the team for European competition. To my mind this is not much of an incentive for the lower tier players. Maybe this is one of the reasons that the players association has backed the salary cap.

3. Squad size. Following on from point 2 clubs would still need to maintain enough players to be able to compete in the premiership. So a club like Tigers could have 7 or 8 players or maybe more in the elite group. Those players would need to be covered for in the premiership squad thereby increasing the financial burden on clubs.

4. Salary cap. Would the elite group fall outside of the salary cap? I'm assuming so. What happens if they fall out of the elite classification and back into the premiership squad and therefore back into the salary cap? That would be a nightmare for clubs and regulators.

[BengalTiger]

One facet of the current situation has not been mentioned, the inaction and disinterest of the IRB.
The fact that rampant stocking of French and English league teams with high paid and high profile overseas players that has no benefit to the national teams of France and England, and may in fact be a reason for the relatively poor form of both teams, the majority on the IRB will welcome this side effect, they have no interest in stopping the oncoming train wreck of failed clubs in France and England.

[Hot_Charlie]

One facet of the current situation has not been mentioned, the inaction and disinterest of the IRB.
The fact that rampant stocking of French and English league teams with high paid and high profile overseas players that has no benefit to the national teams of France and England, and may in fact be a reason for the relatively poor form of both teams, the majority on the IRB will welcome this side effect, they have no interest in stopping the oncoming train wreck of failed clubs in France and England.

France maybe, but I don't that the AP is being filled with overseas players. I wouldn't be keen on the balance shifting too much more, but at the moment, in England, I think it's about right. If you take a slapshot of the Tigers, we've got a few more SH/non "home nations" players than we had 10-15 years ago, but not that many. If anything the balance has been tipped by the Italians arriving, but they've not really displaced potential "home" talent, but augmented it, and offered experience.

[h's dad]

Perhaps a little off the wall but as I understand it, the AP salary cap only applies to the AP. Could a club where money is no object contract players purely for competitions where there is no salary cap and keep them outside of their AP squads?

Not sure if that is possible but if it were it would be fraught with difficulties under present arrangements. 4 difficulties spring immediately to mind.

1. International release for England qualified players. The current agreement with the RFU is (I believe) with the umbrella body PRL rather than individual clubs. So, if clubs have players that don't fall under the umbrella agreement (because they don't play the in the premiership),separate arrangements for their release would have to be made with the RFU either with individual clubs or some new umbrella group that represents these players. I don't believe the RFU would want to have a further agreement which could, in theory, operate under different terms to that with PRL. That would surely be a logistical and administrative nightmare.

2. Take a scenario in which a club has players contracted purely for competitions that are not the premiership. I'm making the assumption that such players would be those that currently earn the most because they are internationals, British Lions, marquee players etc. For lack of a better term let's call them the elite players at any club. To have such a group would lead to a 2 tier system among the playing staff - the elite and the rest - or 3 tier if you bring academies into the equation. I'm also assuming the elite would benefit by not having to play so many games with all the advantages that brings. In other words you would have the very scenario that appertained under the old Heineken Cup where teams in the Pro 12 were able to rest players and thereby gain advantage over other teams who could not. Would this not lead to 2 problems? Firstly resentment from the clubs that couldn't afford to do this and secondly resentment from the players below the elite tier who would be slogging their guts out week in and out in the Premiership to qualify for Europe so that the elite could turn up and usurp their places in the team for European competition. To my mind this is not much of an incentive for the lower tier players. Maybe this is one of the reasons that the players association has backed the salary cap.

3. Squad size. Following on from point 2 clubs would still need to maintain enough players to be able to compete in the premiership. So a club like Tigers could have 7 or 8 players or maybe more in the elite group. Those players would need to be covered for in the premiership squad thereby increasing the financial burden on clubs.

4. Salary cap. Would the elite group fall outside of the salary cap? I'm assuming so. What happens if they fall out of the elite classification and back into the premiership squad and therefore back into the salary cap? That would be a nightmare for clubs and regulators.

Thanks for the substantial response.

1. I was thinking the arrangement more suited to overseas players in their off season. This is a fairly common occurrence anyway.
2. Point 1 addresses much of point 2. Also, as you say, it’s not a million miles from scenarios in other leagues. In terms of club resentment, I think any UK club with European aspirations could afford this to some degree. In terms of players, if it is a players job to warm the bench all season to cover injuries and absences then that’s his job – from international down to club colt (and sometimes younger although I disagree when that happens).
3. Covered in point 2. If clubs are willing and able to (or actually currently) spend more than the current salary cap it is not a problem for those competing in Europe.
4. The assumption is that it does fall outside and there is no crossover from European temp to premiership squad.

This was initially just a random thought but I’m starting to think it could be used to make English teams more competitive in Europe while maintaining the level domestic playing field. If it does breach current salary cap regs (not sure on this), maybe PRL could consider tweaking the regulations?

[jgriffin]

Inside line from Bath coaching staff member today:
1 they have been cleared by PRL (so it was them and Saffas)
2 but they will have to shed a lot of players at the end of the season as a consequence.
Not sure what to make of that, what terms the 'clear' was couched in? Any ideas?

[longlivethecrumbie]

Inside line from Bath coaching staff member today:
1 they have been cleared by PRL (so it was them and Saffas)
2 but they will have to shed a lot of players at the end of the season as a consequence.
Not sure what to make of that, what terms the 'clear' was couched in? Any ideas?

I guess no immediate sanctions but stop being naughty boys and don't do it again