Can we please see our own salary cap announcement like this

[TomWeston]

Part of the problem is there is only one years rules on the website. I am not sure where you would get hold of the previous years. Perhaps through the PRL or Tigers. It should be fairly easy to put through a comparator should you have both. Sorry I don't have time to hunt down previous versions.

Google search produces..


http://www.premiershiprugby.com/downloa ... 201314.pdf

[fleabane]

LE 18, it is not boring, it is integral to the way in which the sport is governed and funded.

If championships are to mean anything, all participants should play by the same rule book, or in this case, formal agreement. PRL is the self regulating body which formulated the SC arrangements with the full support of, and at the instigation of the clubs. For some of those clubs to intentionally go against the spirit, if not the actual letter of the law asks questions about regulation and the integrity of the Premiership as a whole.

To have a situation where the ruling body cannot take action because it doesn't have the money to successfully launch action against vastly more wealthy legal entities for breach of contract or similar is worrying, not boring. The lack of transparency is appalling and an effrontery to all stakeholders. Shades of Cap'n Bob.

Who runs the Premiership? Not the PRL or RFU it seems. Nor BT Sport! Who is left?

[Bill W (2)]

LE 18, it is not boring, it is integral to the way in which the sport is governed and funded.

If championships are to mean anything, all participants should play by the same rule book, or in this case, formal agreement. PRL is the self regulating body which formulated the SC arrangements with the full support of, and at the instigation of the clubs. For some of those clubs to intentionally go against the spirit, if not the actual letter of the law asks questions about regulation and the integrity of the Premiership as a whole.

To have a situation where the ruling body cannot take action because it doesn't have the money to successfully launch action against vastly more wealthy legal entities for breach of contract or similar is worrying, not boring. The lack of transparency is appalling and an effrontery to all stakeholders. Shades of Cap'n Bob.

Who runs the Premiership? Not the PRL or RFU it seems. Nor BT Sport! Who is left?

We have a very simple situation. A small number of stakeholders in PRL (likely 2) have sufficient financial clout that they are able to overide the wishes of the others.

They may also be able to exert undue influence on the RFU and the administration of the National Game.

To what end though? Neither have a ground big enough to sustain the (new) salary cap through supporters income. They may have a "vision" of a global game with matches played in New York and Abu Dhabi and Cape Town. But even their pockets are not deep enough to fund that for the period necessary (5-10 years).

So they will, in the end lead their clubs to go bust, I would suspect from their balance sheets that they are both very close to being technically insolvent anyway. And the "superstars" they employ have not halped England win anything.

They want to spend their money. Fine it is theirs to lose.

Will it do lasting damage to the game? Likely not.

One or two indivisuals may gain financial benefit, - I stop short of naming some.

[BengalTiger]

The Elephant in the room is the RFU, they are technically supposed to be running the game in England, all competitions are run under the auspices of the RFU, so if certain individuals are saying we will buy the title by finding dubious ways around the mutually agreed salary cap and will respond to any challenge by invoking the lawyers, it should be the RFU who step in and tell said individuals that the back off or face a charge of bringing the game into disrepute.
Because for me they have dragged the game into disrepute.
Does any fan think that had the agreed sanctions been applied, that last seasons champions or runners up would have kept their ill-gotten silverware, no I thought not!

[JackFlashJonny]

It is already clear that in general not enough people care and this has been pushed under the carpet..Until we hopefully get something leaked then we just have to forget about it..

Looking at the squads this year everything seems fair and that is all we can now ask for...

[wormus]

With the best will in the world the issues are not whether the odd £1K of travelling expenses falls within the Cap. They are about whether £500K villas on SA Golf courses, £50K salaries to relatives and £100K "consultancy" fees do.

You know this because?

Please do not forget the Daily Mail April 2015 article on Saracens owing £42 million and recruiting 24 new staff only 9 new players /coaches ie 15 admin, Employee wage bill £9.1 million,
£3m for 54 admin staff = £55k each.
A further article suggested that relatives of players "assisted" in the running of the club outside the salary cap!!!
:- http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... story.html

[vin rouge]

It is already clear that in general not enough people care and this has been pushed under the carpet..Until we hopefully get something leaked then we just have to forget about it..

Looking at the squads this year everything seems fair and that is all we can now ask for...

and thus was all change ever effected....

this shouldn't be forgotten- we should be demanding transparency, and the clubs- given all they say about honesty and open policies etc should demand this also

the precedent is important...

[fleabane]

^+1

[Cagey Tiger]

Boring now, cannot we please move on?

Which is precisely what PRL and the teams that didn't break any rules but who reached a settlement anyway want to happen. You're not Mark McCaffrey are you?

[fleabane]

Moore again on the warpath, and uncovers some of what went on at Premiership Rugby.

He also explains that the confidentiality agreement behind which Leicester are hiding is not legally binding:

"Both McCafferty and Chairman Quentin Smith have repeatedly stated that there is a binding confidentiality agreement that precludes giving details. This is convenient as it also allows them to denounce anything said as speculation. Smith likened the situation to a criminal case where we are all bound by statutory evidential rules. To use a considered legal term -
They know a private commercial agreement can easily be varied or confidentiality waived, especially when transparency is thought more important."

So what are Simon Cohen and the board playing at? Are we to remain in the dark? The truth, if unsavoury, is better than the deceit we have at present. If Tigers have ansgressed, fess up, apologise and make amends like grown ups. Please.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... -fans.html

[trendylfj]

To be fair to Simon Cohen, when I asked the specific question at the AGM of Simon, it was Digby Jones who immediately took over and read the statement which the club published and I believe that it is Digby who is the legal eagle and is the main person who is saying we must not be told. That is just my reading of the matter. I don't think that he is the sort of person who will be budged or bullied into retracting his stance by us poor plebs. In my opinion he thinks he is right and that is the end of the matter.

We could all email his personal secretary who looks after his Tigers affairs and see what happens then but I really do think that the only way we will ever get to the truth is if there is a journalist with enough clout and contact decides to get involved - any suggestion????


PS email address is [email protected]

[Bill W (2)]

The "politicians" have decided that the decisions made by PRL and the reasons for them are not sufficiently palatable to be exposed to the full light of day.

Undoubtedly "horse trading" took place. Fielding LDJ adds gravitas to Tigers position - it is unlikely he will have been involved in the "horse trading".

[gingertiger47]

Yes, yes, yes & quickly!

[fleabane]

trendylfj, Simon Cohen is the lawyer, Digby the former government minister and Director of the Institute of Directors. Why SC couldn't answer I have no idea.

Actually I do. He is a lawyer.