Saracens are relegated!

[Roadsweeper]

Are rugby and football contracts fixed term contracts?

Is this why contracts are often for 4 years or less, as they do not attract redundancy payments as per the attached?

https://archive.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4587

I would think that any early termination, would attract notice pay, but often they can be for quite small sums. Say one month's pay.

If I were a peripheral player at Saracens I might be worried.

If they send players out on loan, I think their salaries may not count, so I wonder if the short term option is to unload players to ther clubs probably outside of the Premiership for a period.

[Bristol Tiger]

Are rugby and football contracts fixed term contracts?

Is this why contracts are often for 4 years or less, as they do not attract redundancy payments as per the attached?

https://archive.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=4587

I would think that any early termination, would attract notice pay, but often they can be for quite small sums. Say one month's pay.

If I were a peripheral player at Saracens I might be worried.

If they send players out on loan, I think their salaries may not count, so I wonder if the short term option is to unload players to ther clubs probably outside of the Premiership for a period.

The on loan doesn't help as the cap exclusion is very specific:

• A season long Loan Player x 3 players

So if they aren't on loan already, you're not making a saving for the cap.

On the notice pay - all depends on the contract. There will be defined termination clauses in them that are likely to spell out what payments should be made, if any. I imagine the top players have the better contracts (for them) as they will have been able to pay for the legal support! So your comment on being a peripheral player - probably spot-on. They may be on basic contracts with little more than a month's notice pay.

If Saracens (and Wray) are still paying the totals that have caused the breach over the last three seasons, then that is a lot of peripheral players needing to go though!

[fleabane]

Mark 62 wrote:

« Rowe has been very critical of what happened, many would say rightly so. As I say it is probably me being cynical but I do wonder just how white they are down there compared to what has gone on.
Nothing to base this on just a gut feeling. »

It is posts like this that start unfounded rumours. That should not happen on this forum.

[Mark62]

Mark 62 wrote:

« Rowe has been very critical of what happened, many would say rightly so. As I say it is probably me being cynical but I do wonder just how white they are down there compared to what has gone on.
Nothing to base this on just a gut feeling. »

It is posts like this that start unfounded rumours. That should not happen on this forum.

So your saying I’m not allowed to give an opinion, and I’ve quite clearly stated it is my opinion

[strawclearer]

Accounts are submitted in July for scrutiny which seems to me far too late, would much rather that it was a 2 stage process - interim accounts in December and final accounts in July. At the December stage a club would have to include projected spends so that the officer can look at it and say "wooooow - you will be over if you continue like this - please adjust or you will suffer points/fines deductions in March if you cannot prove you have complied" That way the offending club would be punished in the season they have offended in

Now - that makes a lot of sense!

[mol2]

I wonder how it might work.

Player has contract terminated and agrees to no redundancy or compensation. Sugar daddy steps in and pays a sum to facilitate this. If said Sugar Daddy who has severed his direct involvement with the club would this then be outside of consideration of salary cap calculations as the player is no longer contracted to the club?

Just looking at permutations to create loopholes that might be exploited.

[Roadsweeper]

Re: sugar daddy -

English law recognises people who are in fact acting as company directors without being formally appointed, known as shadow directors.

If say a major shareholder paid a player following termination of a contract, I believe this may be caught in the same way as other arrangements were caught, even if said person was no longer a recognised director at companies house.

[fleabane]

According to an article in today’s Guardian, it seems that the players who participated in the joint business ventures may have been paid less than their worth as salary.

If they lose that « business » advantage, they will want to be paid at the going rate, and that is why space needs to be made for Sarries to remain under the cap. That appears to be why Griffiths has already talked to players to discuss their futures, in and out of the club.

Liam Williams may be allowed to leave straight away, and others may be released early.

Griffiths has recognised the need to build bridges and renew trust with other clubs, and has apparently been making a lot of phone calls.

There is a long way to go for Sarries players, staff and supporters.

[fleabane]

Mark 62 wrote:

« Rowe has been very critical of what happened, many would say rightly so. As I say it is probably me being cynical but I do wonder just how white they are down there compared to what has gone on.
Nothing to base this on just a gut feeling. »

It is posts like this that start unfounded rumours. That should not happen on this forum.

So your saying I’m not allowed to give an opinion, and I’ve quite clearly stated it is my opinion

You are clearly allowed to give an opinion. Opinions are based on knowledge, however limited, not gut feeling.

[Mark62]

Mark 62 wrote:

« Rowe has been very critical of what happened, many would say rightly so. As I say it is probably me being cynical but I do wonder just how white they are down there compared to what has gone on.
Nothing to base this on just a gut feeling. »

It is posts like this that start unfounded rumours. That should not happen on this forum.

So your saying I’m not allowed to give an opinion, and I’ve quite clearly stated it is my opinion

You are clearly allowed to give an opinion. Opinions are based on knowledge, however limited, not gut feeling.

That is the most ridiculous statement I have ever read on here. Just googled opinion, A view or judgement about something not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

I await your apology, though I’m not holding my breath

[TomWeston]

I wonder how it might work.

Player has contract terminated and agrees to no redundancy or compensation. Sugar daddy steps in and pays a sum to facilitate this. If said Sugar Daddy who has severed his direct involvement with the club would this then be outside of consideration of salary cap calculations as the player is no longer contracted to the club?

Just looking at permutations to create loopholes that might be exploited.

Isn't this exactly the sort of behaviour of which Saffas were allegedly guilty earlier; in the previous case the alleged bunce being paid out of SA?

[mol2]

Just wondering if once the player has left the rules allow pay offs made after this point (by others) to be deemed to be salary.?

How can that bit be policed? The player is no longer contracted to a Premiership side so the league may have no contractual powers over him to inspect his personal accounts. Likewise the league have no powers to inspect the accounts of rich individuals or companies other than those lodged at companies house.

Do we trust the cheats to reform and comply?

[loretta]

Do we trust the cheats to reform and comply?

[Tiglon]

Surely if a players contract is terminated early and paid up then they have effectively been paid a for the duration of that contract and hence there would be no saving.

I'm not sure, there's nothing in the rules that says compensation for early termination of contract would be counted.

Usually, compensation for breach of contract would be paid after the contract has been breached/terminated, so would not be (in employment law) a payment to an employee and does not attract income tax, NI etc. Therefore, it might not also count towards the salary cap.

You could argue that a payment specifically not to play rugby for the club should, in all fairness, not count towards the cap. It would be, after all paying to make your squad weaker.

See previous post to yours - and here: https://www.premiershiprugby.com/about- ... alary-cap/

Redundancy and compromise agreement payments are included in the cap. Making players redundant at the end of the season would only help if the amount paid to them in redundancy/compromise is less than the salary. This is possible if players contracts were terminated soonish (e.g. if someone's contract has a 3 month notice period - there is still more than 3 months salary "to go" so a potential saving).

Also going back to the original breach and what little information we had - the salaries were within the cap. The amounts that took it over were the direct investments from Wray into companies that several players owned or co-owned. As long as these payments are not made this season, then Saracens are probably within the cap for this season i.e. they had been making sure the actual salary bill was within the cap.

Of course, if any payments, or commitments to pay, into these companies has been made this season, then Saracens have a problem ... but not until after the end of the season!

Ah thank you, I missed that.

I wonder how it might work.

Player has contract terminated and agrees to no redundancy or compensation. Sugar daddy steps in and pays a sum to facilitate this. If said Sugar Daddy who has severed his direct involvement with the club would this then be outside of consideration of salary cap calculations as the player is no longer contracted to the club?

Just looking at permutations to create loopholes that might be exploited.

Wray hasn't severed his involvement with the club and, regardless, the cap rules include payments made by third parties or related parties. I really don't think there's a loophole here for Sarries to exploit.

[LE18]

I seem to remember seeing pictures of our players with the title "sponsored by........" If a player is sponsored by an outside rich individual, or company, does his sponsorship count into the salary cap? What form does "sponsorship" consist of?