New Salary Cap Breach?

[Old Hob]

Impossible to compare then and now. Let us not forget that after the game the players had to go back to work . I remember JPR turned up at his job as an A&E doctor one Monday with more stitches across his face than any of the patients needed. Some had sinecures but many didn't. Dusty Hare carried on farming, for example.

[chipnchase]

If anyone has a spare 8 hours today feel free to dive into the current regs https://d2cx26qpfwuhvu.cloudfront.net/p ... .10.20.pdf

[westwinds31]

Thanks C&C, I got bored halfway through, but was interested to note that it’s the obligation of the player’s agent to disclose to the salary cap manager where a player has earned any additional money/benefits outside of what they are paid by the club. So, imaging rights etc. I guess this is a minefield, where players clearly want to earn extra for “shower gel” or other products that they put their name to, but do the agents always notify the clubs ? What about for a few of say, £1,000 for an appearance ? Then there’s the things you see on social media all the time, players thanking, and mentioning brands who have supplied them with free protein bars or other goodies !

[mol2]

The problem is blurring the margins between earnings from and arranged by the club and those that are personal earnings.

If it is being paid by an organisation unrelated to the club, easy.
If the fee is earned for work for a business that also sponsors the club? It could be legitimate, but if the club is paying below the market rate and the individual commitment of work to the sponsor doesn’t match the apparent fee it looks more of a Sarries trick. But at the margins it is hard to prevent a player also having an independent work relationship with the club’s sponsor that is outside his contractual relationship with the club. The Premiership can’t prevent that easily without falling foul of employment laws relating to restraint of trade. Indeed it makes it hard to penalise the club too unless it is as blatant as occurred at Sarries.

[fentiger]

[Big Dai]

Not just before dinner, old chap, please!

[WhitecapTiger]

Not just before dinner, old chap, please!

Just staking his claim for when Borthwick leaves or England role

[Big Dai]

Not just before dinner, old chap, please!

Just staking his claim for when Borthwick leaves or England role

I've just coughed up my post dinner "digestif"!

This must be the most unpalatable post of the year ...........and it's only new year's day!

[fentiger]

Not just before dinner, old chap, please!

Just staking his claim for when Borthwick leaves or England role

I've just coughed up my post dinner "digestif"!

This must be the most unpalatable post of the year ...........and it's only new year's day!

I apologise, never intended to cause distress

[Offside]

Salary cap discussed by Dayglo and Ugo on Rugby Tonight. More balanced that I was expecting but:
1. Compared to Sarries big breach rather than smaller breaches by Quins and another.
2. Said no other clubs had missed out as Tigers had not won anything, but Falcons were relegated instead of Tigers in a year that could be involved. Poor knowledge/appreciation by them.
3. Read out a PRL statement that suggested any penalty would be based on those on force at the time of the breach.

[OakhamTiger32]

Just read the interview with Ben Kay and at the bottom of it is this:

Why relegation is looking unlikely for the Tigers.

Even if Leicester are found to be guilty of breaching the salary cap to a similar extent to Saracens, they are unlikely to face the same fate as the north London club.

There will be no relegation from the Premiership this season, as the league will expand to 14 teams by including this season’s Championship winners next term.

Relegation will remain on pause for the 2022/23 season, which means that even if Leicester do get deducted 70 points in the league as Saracens were either this season or next, they will remain in the Premiership.

However, there are a number of different sanctions available to Premiership Rugby if Leicester are found to be guilty, with the investigation currently ongoing.

Nothing we didn’t know already but I guess reinforces the fact we are unlikely to get relegated.

[TigerMac3]

Salary cap discussed by Dayglo and Ugo on Rugby Tonight. More balanced that I was expecting but:
1. Compared to Sarries big breach rather than smaller breaches by Quins and another.
2. Said no other clubs had missed out as Tigers had not won anything, but Falcons were relegated instead of Tigers in a year that could be involved. Poor knowledge/appreciation by them.
3. Read out a PRL statement that suggested any penalty would be based on those on force at the time of the breach.

Re: point 3… seems to be conflicted reports surrounding this. Have seen it quoted that we’ll be penalised based on the ‘post Sarries’ sanctions rather than the pre. The hope for a significant fine seems to be dwindling by the day.

[jgriffin]

It would seem to me that to apply current rules retrospectively, when other rules were in force, would be actionable. Still, the "Saracens or Harlequins must win"media faction will be happy with point deductions, even if Saracens are re-signing current internationals "at vastly reduced" wages is occurring.

[OakhamTiger32]

Salary cap discussed by Dayglo and Ugo on Rugby Tonight. More balanced that I was expecting but:
1. Compared to Sarries big breach rather than smaller breaches by Quins and another.
2. Said no other clubs had missed out as Tigers had not won anything, but Falcons were relegated instead of Tigers in a year that could be involved. Poor knowledge/appreciation by them.
3. Read out a PRL statement that suggested any penalty would be based on those on force at the time of the breach.

Re: point 3… seems to be conflicted reports surrounding this. Have seen it quoted that we’ll be penalised based on the ‘post Sarries’ sanctions rather than the pre. The hope for a significant fine seems to be dwindling by the day.

I’m sure the legal team would contest this if so. I’m no expert but don’t see how Tigers can legally be penalised on current regulations for past infringements at a time when the current rules didn’t apply. Sarries were penalised for recent infringements based on the current rules so their case is completely different.

If someone has dug up some ‘historic’ breaches and is trying to impose current rules that’s just ridiculous. It’s a bit like changing the national speed limit to 50mph and retrospectively going back and finding all those that go done for speeding at 80mph and imposing a stricter sanction for now being 30mph over the limit not 20! Seems like a farce to me but as I say I’m not a legal expert

[OakhamTiger32]

It would seem to me that to apply current rules retrospectively, when other rules were in force, would be actionable. Still, the "Saracens or Harlequins must win"media faction will be happy with point deductions, even if Saracens are re-signing current internationals "at vastly reduced" wages is occurring.

Agreed