Interesting news re: Sarries salary cap

[Cardiff Tig]

And let's face it the likes of Brits, Smit, Strettle, Wrigglesworth, Borthwick, Berger, Joubert, Barritt, Brown, Tompkins, Hougaard, Stevens, Hodgeson and co. are not going to sign below market rate for established internationals.

It all depends on when these players signed though and for how long - Wrigglesworth and Barrit have only just become internationals and i don't think would have been that expensive at first and Stevens would have been cheap coming after his drug ban. I have no idea when any of the Sarries players signed/resigned and for how long. And im not sure how expensive some of the SA contingent would be as if they were really worth that much they would have stayed in SA and been in the frame for the national team.

[Daveyboy]

Incidentally, Richard Wigglesworth played for England in the 2008 6N tournament so it is not correct to say that he has "just" become an international player.

[mol2]

Of those only a few are current internationals so they may not command as big a salary as we might think.

Of those current internationals - Stevens probably came at a discount given his ban. Hodgson & Wigglesworth were well off the international radar when they were signed (and probably will return to that status). Even Borthwick, as a second row, wouldn't command the salary of a top prop. Let's face it the primary qualification for a lock is to be big & he wouldn't rate in the top four locks at Tigers!

Of the SA contingent - most of the internationals are former internationals so past their peak in terms of earnings and in terms of world rugby the pay in England is still pretty good compared to many countries & there's not the language issue that affects playing in France & Japan.

[tig1]

And let's face it the likes of Brits, Smit, Strettle, Wrigglesworth, Borthwick, Berger, Joubert, Barritt, Brown, Tompkins, Hougaard, Stevens, Hodgeson and co. are not going to sign below market rate for established internationals.

How many of these international players were at world cup 2011 ?
Stevens and Wigglesworth went. Anybody else ?

I think Tigers had 13 (?), then we have since added Mulipola and Parling has become and England regular. We also have Saxons players in Crane, Allen and Billy.

I dont really see this argument. Even with the recent additions of Barritt, Strettle, Farrell and Botha, Tigers still have way more current internationals than Saracens dont they ?

[Bertos]

Tigers still have way more current internationals than Saracens dont they ?

Once Waldrom went out Tigers had 12 at the WC. As well as Stevens and Wigglesworth, Saracens had Brown, Hayden Smith, Wyles, Tagicakibau, Burger and Smit (although he had not played for them yet), so that is 8.

Since then Farrell, Barrit, Botha, Hodgson and Strettle have been added to the England squad and Gill has made it to the Wales squad.

I make that 14 current internationals which, if you take the 12 Tigers players who went to the WC plus Mulipola and Parling, is the same as us.

They also have Goode, Saull and Spencer in the Saxons (Goode was even promoted to the Elite squad when Flood was injured) so they are similar in that area too.

[Tiglon]

So to sum up...

Evidence proving Saracens are guilty:
An anonymous source
General public opinion
Hearsay
Rumour
They have a lot of internationals

Anyone can write something on the internet and claim it comes from a reliable source, hearsay and rumour are meaningless, and Saracens are not the only club who have lots of internationals.

Can we not move on from this unproven mudslinging until someone actually offers some kind of evidence?

[Cardiff Tig]

Tigers still have way more current internationals than Saracens dont they ?

Once Waldrom went out Tigers had 12 at the WC. As well as Stevens and Wigglesworth, Saracens had Brown, Hayden Smith, Wyles, Tagicakibau, Burger and Smit (although he had not played for them yet), so that is 8.

Since then Farrell, Barrit, Botha, Hodgson and Strettle have been added to the England squad and Gill has made it to the Wales squad.

I make that 14 current internationals which, if you take the 12 Tigers players who went to the WC plus Mulipola and Parling, is the same as us.

They also have Goode, Saull and Spencer in the Saxons (Goode was even promoted to the Elite squad when Flood was injured) so they are similar in that area too.

But unless Farrell re-signed this season (I don't know if he did so anyone who does would be helpful) he isn't going to be expensive until next season/nest renewal. Also I don't think they have any established internationals except Brown and Burger and I doubt they would command as much of a wage as other internationals from the top nations. They have a lots of players with very little caps that would have gone to sarries to further their international career rather than for the money.

I can only see Smit and Ashton as real earners at the moment with no other facts - not sure how much difference there is between league and union anymore and whether it would have taken a lot to tempt Tompkins, especially with the Wigan connection and the fact its his brother who everyone is raving about in league rather than him.

[daktari]

I think people grossly over estimate what players earn, especially the younger ones. I know that a few years ago the youngsters were earning about 15k.

I've said before that you can pay a couple of players silly money and the others can still get a very good wage by most people's standard. The problems occur when you have several players on the silly money.

[youngtiger]

The maths simply don't add up at Saracens. Before SAIL's involvement, Sarries lost between £1.5 - £2.0M each year and they would have been spending somewhere close to the salary cap. That shot up to first a £4.2M loss and then a £6.7M loss and possily an >£8M loss for the last financial year (results not yet posted).

Ignoring the Wembley games for a moment, income has been about the same, so the only valid reason for the increaed losses is expenses. In other words, with little else having changed (still renting VR, same training facilities etc), salaries. They probably have a larger coaching and conditioning staff but the majority of the losses have to be increasing player salaries. Even if you put £1M of the increased losses towards the Wembley games and increased coaching staff, it still doesn't account for the £4-5M increased losses.

And let's face it the likes of Brits, Smit, Strettle, Wrigglesworth, Borthwick, Berger, Joubert, Barritt, Brown, Tompkins, Hougaard, Stevens, Hodgeson and co. are not going to sign below market rate for established internationals.

“You are basically suggesting that the CEO, finance director and chairman are liars and cheats. You are saying somebody of significant status in the sport is a cheat."

If I remember correctly I watched a rugby club report on a pre-season adventure SAffacens did for which they dropped players off in various parts of europe and got them to make their own way to their training camp. (in pairs of course, so they could hold hands when they crossed the roads) I think you'll find that people who are as rich as the SAffas owners are, are particularly good at spending money.

As for those "established internationals":
Hougaard, Brits & Strettle- none internationals on signing, only 1 is now
Wigglesworth- 3rd pick for England at WC, even lower now
Stevens-they picked him up after the ban and he'd played no rugby for a long time
Hayden Smith, Wyles, Tagicakibau & Burger- all play for minor countries so won't be able to command real top dollar.
Smit, Brown and possibly Hodgson & Borthwick are the only ones who could really ask for much, though charlie's career was waning almost as badly as borthwick's.

Our squad is in general much stronger than theirs IMO, so I think I'll wait for something to happen before I pass any real judgement, seeing as there's no evidence whatsoever.

I agree with Tiglon, let's move on now...(now that i've had my say and furthered this argument )

[fleabane]

It is a fact that PRL is investigating a supposed abuse of the salary cap (the s.c. is a Premiership agreement, not an RFU rule). This from an impeccable source, as is the fact that the club under scrutiny is not us!

We suppose it is Sarries for the reasons Tiglon gives.

It is said that Sarries will go to court if found to have exceeded the cap. They would doubtless also go to court if unfounded allegations are made against them.

Be careful what you write!

[Kinoulton]

It does have horrible echoes of the supposed claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

If you want to believe something badly enough then it's not hard to find something on the internet that will back you up.

I'm not saying that Saracens are innocent, but I am saying that they are not guilty yet, and if we dig deeply enough, the other Premiership sides are not proven innocent yet.

[Bertos]

Tigers still have way more current internationals than Saracens dont they ?

But unless Farrell re-signed this season (I don't know if he did so anyone who does would be helpful) he isn't going to be expensive until next season/nest renewal. Also I don't think they have any established internationals except Brown and Burger and I doubt they would command as much of a wage as other internationals from the top nations. They have a lots of players with very little caps that would have gone to sarries to further their international career rather than for the money.

I can only see Smit and Ashton as real earners at the moment with no other facts - not sure how much difference there is between league and union anymore and whether it would have taken a lot to tempt Tompkins, especially with the Wigan connection and the fact its his brother who everyone is raving about in league rather than him.

I am not suggesting they are in breaking the cap, just pointing out that they have a similar number of International players to us.

[bluntiger]

So to sum up...

Evidence proving Saracens are guilty:
An anonymous source
General public opinion
Hearsay
Rumour
They have a lot of internationals

Just ignore the financial details then! Where else are the balooning losses going? They are public and published facts. The latest figures for 2010/11 was a loss of £6.4M and increasing rapidly. Where else do you think the money is going? Perhaps they are making charitable donations? Thought not!

[me2]

If Tigers had attendances like Sarries, had to pay rent on a stadium that wasn't theirs and had the (lack of) conferencing facilities that Sarries have then I wouldn't be surprised if Tigers made an annual loss of around £6.4m too!

As it is, despite the profitable Twickenham Hospitality are (Tigers Events) the revenue from matchday & non-matchday corporate hire and the regular 20,000+ attendances, Tigers are still only able to turn a relatively small profit each year and have even made losses in recent seasons.


Therefore if your argument is Saracens' "financial details" I would suggest that Tigers are in a similarly dubious position regarding the salary cap.

Any "overspend" by a Premiership club will be minimal & HIGHLY UNLIKELY to be in the £millions (as you are implying) as that would be practically impossible to hide and even more impossible to claim as "accidental" overspend.


I'm more inclined to support Tiglon's position than bluntiger's given the relative (lack of) evidence to suggest Saracens are doing anything different to other Prem clubs with lots of internationals...such as our own fair club.

[bluntiger]

Here are the financial figures (all public data, T/O turnover and profit/loss) for the year ending April 2011 (agreed it is a year out of date but it is the latest public figures).

Tigers £18.5M T/O Profit £0.3M
Saints £12.0M T/O Profit £0.6M
Quins £11.3M T/O Loss £1.3M
Gloucester £9.4M T/O Loss £0.6M
Bath £8.8M T/O Loss £1.3M
Sale £7.9M T/O Loss £1.6M
Wasps £7.7M T/O Loss £2.4M
Irish £7.6M T/O Loss £2.1M
Saracens £6.9M T/O Loss £6.4M
Newcastle £6.2M T/O Loss £1.5M

Presumably most teams (possibly except Newcastle) use 90%+ of the salary cap so if anyone could explain away the extra £4-5M losses of Saracens compared to all the other teams I would be interested to understand.

The Wembley games lose approx £100K each so that may account for £400K of the extra losses but apart from that where else can the money be going?

Compare them to Wasps, Sale or Irish, all get similar money from PRL, all rent football stadia and yet Saracens lose £4-5M more despite similar turnover? The only other cost variables are salaries (player and staff) and expenses. Yes Saracens went to Oktoberfest and to Miami, but those expenses would run into the tens of thousands, not 100's of thousands let alone millions.

The financial facts just don't add up. But if someone can explain them, I would be eager to listen.