LE18 wrote:But they did not break the rules according to the report, sounds like they over used the get out loophole of company direct contracts, did all clubs know about this loophole and if so being a bona fide loophole how many used it?
I am sure they (the clubs) would have known this. Certainly I made just this point and that the use of sponsors to pay players or their companies and I'm not a corporate lawyer. (Although some shot me down in flames for making this point)
The salary cap was never going to be enforcible and required the spirit of the agreement to be followed by all. Time has shown that some clubs never had the money for the salary cap to be relevant, some could have paid more but didn't, some perhaps did to cover gaps caused by injuries and others presumably ignored it and spent what they like so long as it didn't go through the club accounts
trendylfj wrote:Eh? Nothing was amiss but it has been resolved?! Nothing is allowed to be said because, like so much involving Premiership Rugby, it is mired in confidentiality clauses and the belief of the rich that the fewer people who know about something the better.
Idiots of the highest order. If you give people a few bits of information (true or not) to speculate about, they will almost always come up with something worse than the reality. This was known as long ago as ancient Greece. You will never see a "nasty" scene in a Greek tragedy. Usually, a messenger comes on and relays a few facts about what happened and leaves the rest up to the (vivid) imagination of the audience.
To me, what seems clear is that some clubs have tried very hard to stick to the exact letter of the law, so that they couldn't be penalised, rather than the spirit of the law. If the law is not watertight, that's a problem for the lawmakers. They have spent time and money looking for any possible loophole or grey area and exploited them. The usual story of the rich using their money to get around things that are "inconvenient" for them.
My first comment on this topic.
Seems clear enough to me, if someone has paid compensation payments then I assume that they have done something wrong and in effect they have settled out of court and agreed to end it there.
The trouble is that it has been settled out of court because the lawmakers are the worried party.
The guilty parties have more money than sense and could grind the sport into the turf with legal bills.
That attitude sticks in the throat of rugby lovers.
Doesn't matter if you are a grassroots supporter or you like to sit in the big stands, it is an unsaid threat to destroy everything.
I'm afraid rugby union has changed and it's those people and money that has changed it.
How can we expect the kids to hold to the traditional rugby values when the adults don't even abide by them.
They need a slap!
Genuine rugby values exist but not in the upper two echelons by the look of it. Money has always existed to boost clubs (e.g. Exeter's business loans) but once a huge amount of available money is used via lawyers to get your own way (known as the exercise of power) the the governing bodies are no longer fit for purpose.
I have said for some time that Craig (and possibly Rupert/Wray)is a big threat to our sport.
Leicester Tigers 1995-
Nottingham 1995-2000
Swansea (Whites) 1988-95
A game played on grass in the open air by teams of XV.
This article states that 8 clubs have confirmed that they are not one of the clubs involved in making agreements with premier rugby. Unfortunately Leicester is not one of the eight clubs.
Add London Irish to that list now and that is nine clubs.
I am not looking forward to my next visit to my local pub at all. I live in a village with a Leics post code but is geographically in Northants and the village is split - half support the Saints and half support Tigers. Now the Saints CEO has issued a statement and it has been confirmed that the investigation involved 2 clubs (according to the BBC article) and there are only 3 clubs left - I know I am going to have my leg pulled by all of the Saints supporters.
This article states that 8 clubs have confirmed that they are not one of the clubs involved in making agreements with premier rugby. Unfortunately Leicester is not one of the eight clubs.
Add London Irish to that list now and that is nine clubs.
Typical Lazy BBC.
Falcons no official comment
Sale no official comment
Exeter no official comment
Saints statement still isn't clear enough IMO
Everyone's getting in a tizzy about these statements, what if all 12 clubs say it wasn't them, what then? If you've been cheating the cap I can't imagine putting out a false statement will play on your mind. Why do we think everyone's else statements are true?
just sayin'...
find a better way of life, http://www.marillion.com
Rykard wrote:slight segway, but been reading some stuff on brian moore's twitter feed, people are threatening to cancel their aviva insurance policies unless they come clean. So this does seem to be escalating a bit more commercially. I wouldn't have thought a company the size of aviva would want it's name associated with this tbh.
I've sent a couple of messages to the official Tigers Twitter account, and one to Simon Cohen, asking him or Peter Tom to make a similar statement to those given by Wasps, Sale, Worcester and others to categorically deny a settlement was reached with Premiership Rugby. The silence is making me a bit nervous.