Over the cap (again)

[Cagey Tiger]

Mmm. I expect it was well-hidden, like that other club’s overspending….

Shedhead1 here:

Lutontiger - I would be very interested to know which clubs beside Saracens and Tiggers you are talking about please? Can you back it up with evidence?

Bob

Hi Bob, Lutontiger said "that other club's..." which is singular, so he is presumably only referring to Sarries.

[Hot_Charlie]

Mmm. I expect it was well-hidden, like that other club’s overspending….

Shedhead1 here:

Lutontiger - I would be very interested to know which clubs beside Saracens and Tiggers you are talking about please? Can you back it up with evidence?

Bob

Hi Bob, Lutontiger said "that other club's..." which is singular, so he is presumably only referring to Sarries.

But we also know at least one other club, suspected but never confirmed to be from the West country, reached a settlement in the first salary cap fiasco around 2014/15. Might be a club with high ticket prices.

We also know that at least two other clubs have been fined under the overrun system for single seasons (Quins and Wasps).

We also know that rules and regulations are open to interpretation; just look at F1, and the in season rule changes made when the other teams get caught out by one team finding a loophole in technical regulations. I work in a highly regulation based environment. We can spend days debate what a particular regulation allows you to do or not. Given that the pages in the current salary cap regs have a longer section on pages of what payments are excluded from the cap compared to what are covered under the cap, it can easily be a difference of opinion. Some of the wording is quite woolly too. The word "arms length commercial terms" appear. Like, how open ended it that.

I don't ever think there was conscious cheating. If there was to do it for so little gain over so many years would have been daft and whatever your opinions of the previous management, that they were not. They thought they'd found a legitimate loophole. Obviously when the whistleblower referred it to Prem Rugby, that was not the Salary Cap Manager/Director's opinion. Tigers have paid the fines in accordance with those regulations.

And people can be as "holier then thou" as they like; the unknown is how many other clubs might have engaged in similar schemes of payments, but maybe just haven't been "exposed", other than the industrial scale creativity at Saracens.

I'd be willing to bet it is more than none.

Storm, meet tea cup. People are massively oversimplifying the whole scenario.

[Hot_Charlie]

For an example, here's regulation 3.8 and 3.9, which may be similar to the area the club was caught out in. Again, these are current regs but used as an indicator:

Player Sponsorship

3.8. “Sponsorship Remuneration” is any Remuneration received by, procured for or due or
promised to a Player or a Player’s Connected Party from a third party (that is not a Club or a
2023-24 Salary Regulations (Updated 16.08.23) Page 13 of 70
Club’s Connected Party) relating to individual Player appearances or sponsorship,
endorsement or merchandising work.

3.9. Subject to Regulation 3.7, Sponsorship Remuneration shall be Excluded Salary, unless it meets
the following criteria, in which case it will be Permitted Salary:
3.9.1. the Salary Cap Director is not satisfied that arrangement is genuine, on arm’s
length commercial terms and has been negotiated and entered into independent
of any relationship between the sponsor or third party and the Player’s Club. In
reaching this decision, the following are examples of what the Salary Cap Director
may take into account;
(a) whether the arrangement was negotiated around the same time as the
Player’s playing contract;
(b) whether the Player is paid a lump sum or as and when services are
performed;
(c) if the commercial terms of the arrangement are typical for an arrangement
of that type;
(d) the likely commercial justification for the sponsor or third party entering into
the arrangement;
(e) whether a representative of the Player’s Club was involved in procuring
the arrangement;
(f) if the party has entered into similar arrangements with other Players at the
Club; and
(g) any other matter that the Salary Cap Director considers relevant

As it implies, it's open to the Salary Cap Director's interpretation

[johnthegriff]

Of course Ellis Genre being announced as an Ambassador for the Bristol kit supplier shortly before he actually signed his intention to join Bristol was clearly nothing to do with his signing and any financial payment to Ellis was clearly outside the salary cap. The fact that the Bristol kit supplier is also the England or RFU official supplier had no influence on the sudden blindness of Salary Cap Directors.

[sk 88]

Of course Ellis Genre being announced as an Ambassador for the Bristol kit supplier shortly before he actually signed his intention to join Bristol was clearly nothing to do with his signing and any financial payment to Ellis was clearly outside the salary cap. The fact that the Bristol kit supplier is also the England or RFU official supplier had no influence on the sudden blindness of Salary Cap Directors.

Or maybe it was included, who knows?