Armitage

[RagingBull]

One of the things I noticed from the Ford interview was him stating they can replace Louw with a like for like player meaning I think Louw is their marquee player so can replace him with a player for the same value?

He can spend a maximum of a total 400K on injury replacements but that is for every injury replacement they sign.

[JackFlashJonny]

He can spend a maximum of a total 400K on injury replacements but that is for every injury replacement they sign.

Thanks RB so I take it they could effectively spend a good bit of that on one player if they wanted to for example?

[RagingBull]

He can spend a maximum of a total 400K on injury replacements but that is for every injury replacement they sign.

Thanks RB so I take it they could effectively spend a good bit of that on one player if they wanted to for example?

they could spend all of that on one player ss long as he isn't over the standard of playing as the player he is meant to be replacing.

[h's dad]

If I came on here and said a try should not be disallowed just because of a forward pass you would rightly think I was an idiot. Some of the comments by posters about salary cap and other regulations fall into the same category. There is a difference between somebody having an alternative point of view and somebody spouting tripe.

I just think you may have an unnecessary cantankerous approach that isn't required. So you may know more about the salary cap than said poster but educating someone doesn't have to be in a condescending manner....why don't you just relax and take it easy you must be old to be that grumpy however I completely echo your salary cap curiosity and for the public to not know who said offenders were and the ramifications they faced is somewhat farcical in my opinion...

With regard to the Armitage situation Sunday will be the key if he lines up for Toulon his world cup dream is surely over before it began and if he doesn't he must be en route to Englands green and pleasant land in the very near future!

Bits of me think they're old and bits of me think they're young. If you think I'm cantankerous you must hang around with a very nice bunch of rugby players.

With regard to Armitage, if the powers that be have any serious aspirations to the RWC they must invoke the exceptional circumstances clause in their policy. I am worried that they will not.

In terms of cap breach disclosure I understand their desire not to air dirty washing but having put the fact that it has happened in the public domain perhaps more clarity might be appropriate.

[h's dad]

H's Dad. Whilst I maybe a little naive as you put it,do you seriously believe the powers at be, just allow clubs to breach the salary cap to swell their coffers, an interesting take on naivety!

It was more a tongue in cheek 'every cloud has a silver lining' to demonstrate humour with my cantankerousness.

[JackFlashJonny]

Bits of me think they're old and bits of me think they're young. If you think I'm cantankerous you must hang around with a very nice bunch of rugby players.

Now this is the sort of stuff I want to hear gave me a good old chuckle at my desk.

Surely H's dad you must be in favour of the home based selection policy otherwise huge swathes of the England team Manu, Cole, Croft and Youngs included could all be earning the big Euro en France..When I first heard this news I thought it was a huge victory for Lancaster and this policy but alas that victory seems to have been short lived Toulon team announcement pending..

I personally feel that both Saracens and Bath have to be flouting the cap to some degree when you look at their squads compared to even ourselves, Saints and Quins..saying that I think Saracens squad this year is far less suspect than years gone by recently

[h's dad]

Bits of me think they're old and bits of me think they're young. If you think I'm cantankerous you must hang around with a very nice bunch of rugby players.

Now this is the sort of stuff I want to hear gave me a good old chuckle at my desk.

Surely H's dad you must be in favour of the home based selection policy otherwise huge swathes of the England team Manu, Cole, Croft and Youngs included could all be earning the big Euro en France..When I first heard this news I thought it was a huge victory for Lancaster and this policy but alas that victory seems to have been short lived Toulon team announcement pending..

I personally feel that both Saracens and Bath have to be flouting the cap to some degree when you look at their squads compared to even ourselves, Saints and Quins..saying that I think Saracens squad this year is far less suspect than years gone by recently

I do like steps taken to keep English talent playing in England for the sakes of the national game and for the spectators.

I don’t like the restraint of trade attempting to discourage players from maximising their income for their benefit and the benefit of their families during a relatively short career.

I accept that where you have similarly talented players it can make sense to select the home based player over the overseas based player.

The policy itself has the opt-out of exceptional circumstances and the ERC player of the year being overseas and playing in a position where there is no clear world class home-based talent I think may constitute an exceptional circumstance for the good of the national team.

I think we need a better policy to keep EQ players playing on home soil than the current one.

The salary cap manager receives enough detail from all clubs to assess whether or not anybody is attempting to pull the wool over his eyes and has the powers to investigate and dig further if he deems it necessary. He should have a far better view of the picture than you or I and if competent should be able to identify possible material breaches bearing in mind he is not obliged to prove beyond reasonable doubt or anywhere near that standard of proof.

[mol2]

The answer to staying within the salary cap, is surely to pay a base salary (modest amount) and then get the salary topped up by a local company or sponsor. I'm not sure sponsorship comes within the cap limit but there is always a way around it.

With respect, this is a rather naïve post if you think the salary cap can be legitimately circumvented by such a simple stratagem. The rules are freely available in both summary and detail form so it might help if you have a look at them.

Like others I am not sure how some clubs can be remaining within the salary cap. Perhaps they go over, declare it as a mistake and pay the financial penalty as laid down? As far as I am aware this is no obligation for offenders to be named and the powers that be will not be averse to a further swelling of the coffers.

Trueleicester is absolutely right - the league has no effective way of policing individual sponsorship payments.
Players' individual tax affairs are private. Corporate ones are less so but don't have to publicly declare all payments with absolute specificity providing the Inland revenue is satisfied. Gets even harder to follow the money trail with foreign players. However this is perfectly legal as far as UK law is concerned. Whether or not it breaches league rules is not a matter for the Inland Revenue or the fraud squad etc.

So if Mol2 plc decided to sponsor Manu via a payment to PacificBricOuthouse inc, registered in Switzerland there is no way the league can do a thing.
1) Because the league would find it very difficult to prove that that payment was made.
2) Even if identified they would have no way of proving it was in lieu of salary.

Many top level sports stars have clauses in their club contracts that enable them to undertake work outside of the club such as endorsements and other advertising work. So if Armitage returned to England and played for Leicester, how could the league prove that private sponsorship deal with Goldsmiths to wear one of their fancy watches was really in lieu of salary by the club, or if Range Rover gave him a car and did an advertising deal to rename Welford Road as the 4x4 Stadium, it still couldn't be proven that the car was part of the salary package unless it was written into his Tigers contract or the player blabbed (which would make it hard to find future employment in the sports world in the future).

[h's dad]

The answer to staying within the salary cap, is surely to pay a base salary (modest amount) and then get the salary topped up by a local company or sponsor. I'm not sure sponsorship comes within the cap limit but there is always a way around it.

With respect, this is a rather naïve post if you think the salary cap can be legitimately circumvented by such a simple stratagem. The rules are freely available in both summary and detail form so it might help if you have a look at them.

Like others I am not sure how some clubs can be remaining within the salary cap. Perhaps they go over, declare it as a mistake and pay the financial penalty as laid down? As far as I am aware this is no obligation for offenders to be named and the powers that be will not be averse to a further swelling of the coffers.

Trueleicester is absolutely right - the league has no effective way of policing individual sponsorship payments.
Players' individual tax affairs are private. Corporate ones are less so but don't have to publicly declare all payments with absolute specificity providing the Inland revenue is satisfied. Gets even harder to follow the money trail with foreign players. However this is perfectly legal as far as UK law is concerned. Whether or not it breaches league rules is not a matter for the Inland Revenue or the fraud squad etc.

So if Mol2 plc decided to sponsor Manu via a payment to PacificBricOuthouse inc, registered in Switzerland there is no way the league can do a thing.
1) Because the league would find it very difficult to prove that that payment was made.
2) Even if identified they would have no way of proving it was in lieu of salary.

Many top level sports stars have clauses in their club contracts that enable them to undertake work outside of the club such as endorsements and other advertising work. So if Armitage returned to England and played for Leicester, how could the league prove that private sponsorship deal with Goldsmiths to wear one of their fancy watches was really in lieu of salary by the club, or if Range Rover gave him a car and did an advertising deal to rename Welford Road as the 4x4 Stadium, it still couldn't be proven that the car was part of the salary package unless it was written into his Tigers contract or the player blabbed (which would make it hard to find future employment in the sports world in the future).

Here we go again.
You either haven’t read or don’t understand the salary cap regulations.
You don’t understand or appreciate the concept and methodology of forensic accounting.
You don’t understand or appreciate the legal nature of the agreement and contracts involved.
You don’t understand or appreciate the levels of proof required for action under the salary cap regulations.
Some of the above I have attempted to explain for new posters however, having tried to make things clear for you previously on repeated occasions you simply will not or cannot understand unless you are just a wind up merchant reeling me in.

[JackFlashJonny]

Oh H's Dad you were doing so well and then you burst with cantankerousness...be careful with the old blood pressure now I am sure Mol2 isn't trying to make you angry...

Anyway its all been put to bed now http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,2588 ... 94,00.html its off and I for one am not comfortable with men like Boudjellal treating the game like this...Rich owners have always been part of Rugby but I think it is time we sort this out before Bruce Craig and his cronies make us into a similar version of football which I feel Saracens and now Bath are akin to i.e. lets buy the league like Chelsea and Manchester City have done in recent footballing years...

What can we do to stop this?

And surely the two marquee signings allowed next year will only add to this situation... what are peoples thoughts on this?

[RagingBull]

My main concer was the fact Bath expected the RFU to help with the fee!!!!! which is unacceptable.

[h's dad]

My main concer was the fact Bath expected the RFU to help with the fee!!!!! which is unacceptable.

You can understand Bath trying it on by asking. What beggars belief is that (as far as I am aware) the RFU had agreed to help until other clubs objected.

[h's dad]

Oh H's Dad you were doing so well and then you burst with cantankerousness...be careful with the old blood pressure now I am sure Mol2 isn't trying to make you angry...

Anyway its all been put to bed now http://www.planetrugby.com/story/0,2588 ... 94,00.html its off and I for one am not comfortable with men like Boudjellal treating the game like this...Rich owners have always been part of Rugby but I think it is time we sort this out before Bruce Craig and his cronies make us into a similar version of football which I feel Saracens and now Bath are akin to i.e. lets buy the league like Chelsea and Manchester City have done in recent footballing years...

What can we do to stop this?

And surely the two marquee signings allowed next year will only add to this situation... what are peoples thoughts on this?

No worries on the bp JFJ. I am just disappointed in my inability to raise the level of knowledge and understanding in mol2’s village by starting at the bottom.

Despite what some think the salary cap works to prevent a simple buying of the APL. I do think that a salary cap is a good thing but my concern is that the cap is not high enough to effectively reward top sportsmen and is a particular hindrance to the top clubs who are expected to compete in Europe at a higher level than the bottom half. Also teams are relatively penalised for supplying players to the EPS.

Association football has started to act with its new rules on financial fairplay. I don’t know much about it but it is probably a little late. Perhaps it is something rugby should address sooner rather than later. The second marquee signing helps bigger clubs so goes some way to addressing my concerns – I’m not sure that it’s the best way or does enough.

[ourla]

They've just put the salary cap up.

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

Rich owners have always been part of Rugby but I think it is time we sort this out before Bruce Craig and his cronies make us into a similar version of football which I feel Saracens and now Bath are akin to i.e. lets buy the league like Chelsea and Manchester City have done in recent footballing years...

Possibly a bit harsh on Saracens - they appear to have invested a lot in young players/academy/scouting but it is taking a few years to come through, but they're moving in the right direction.

I think the next few years there will continue to be the odd 'big name' signing but more home grown players.