https://www.theoffsideline.com/finn-russell-gregor-townsend/
Friday 24 January 2020
FINNGATE
Phew, you couldn't make it up, star player with 49 caps has a few too many bevvies in hotel bar, having played for club earlier that day, and is told by coach that he has been naughty and won't play against Ireland in Dublin, but is then released back to French club so can play for them this weekend, and will no doubt knock it out the park and get MOM award. Adam Hastings, his rapidly improving, but inexperienced, understudy, bound to get injured in Dublin game, forcing coach to go cap in hand to star player for Calcutta Cup game at home, Wooden Spoon beckons already, etc
https://www.theoffsideline.com/finn-russell-gregor-townsend/
https://www.theoffsideline.com/finn-russell-gregor-townsend/
SARACENS SAGA: PRL REPORT SUMMARY AND DOWNLOAD
I am still too upset about Sarries tarnishing the sport I love, so have borrowed Brian Moore's eloquent words to summarise where we are...
From Brian Moore Twitter account
Re Saracens and salary cap - anyone who tries to stress that their rule-breaking was not deliberate has not read the full report, or is being dishonest. It is highly critical of the club and to pretend it exonerates them in any way is equally dishonest.
Warning - this is long and might be a bit boring to some but having now read the full 103 pages of Lord Dyson's Saracens salary cap disciplinary panel decision and PRL regulations this is a summary with comments my brief comments at the end.
So you can follow Premiership ("PRL") Saracens ("S") Salary Cap Manager ("SCM") Salary cap year ("SCY") From the judgement I mention the following - 1.Sarries took prelim point that cap unlawful due to competition law
2. However 2 witnesses including Wray said a salary cap was desirable and they were party to original cap and to its retention. Approved changes from 2014/15 onwards.
3.S suggestion of Mark McCafferty’s evidence not credible, inaccurate and untruthful. Dismissed as unjustified.
4.Reg 6.13 if club wishes to clarify meaning or applicability it should contact SCM who is bound to respond
5. SCM decisions reviewed as to reasonableness, not de novo, though in many instances they state they would have decided similar to SCM
6. There are 2 Key clauses re deciding what is salary - a. any payment or benefit in kind which the player would not have received if it were not for his involvement with the club. b. Any loan made to player under which he is not contracted to repay in full within the SCY
7. Of the various schemes that were under dispute full details were not made available to SCM until investigation.
8. Of those schemes - Property investments – negative equity risk born by Wray not player and loan is interest free. Not commercial transactions because parties do not share the risk in the manner of an equity contributor & not similarly available in normal business.
MBN promotion personal appearances – MBN & S very closely associated, owned partly by Wray's daughter - no contract for any of the three years; full sum paid before appearances which, due to no contract, were not obligatory.
9. Because of those findings the payments were properly deemed as salary.
10. The Regulations have set and agreed monetary penalties and points deduction on sliding scale dependent on amount of breach
11. S accepted sanctions for non-disclosure charges
12.PRL said Strict application of sanctions would mean £5.36 m fine and 70-point deduction. (35 for 2 seasons according to agreed scale) Panel said no reason to decrease points deduction for each season for the following reasons -
a. S did not admit breach, challenged each substantive one and submitted Regulations illegal b. Breaches not deliberate but were reckless c. S previously found guilty of refusing to cooperate in 2015 and settled accepting sanctions d. S did not cooperate with SCM
13. Why Panel concluded recklessness - a. Admitted breaches over 4 years of failure to disclose information b. Failure to consult SCM before entering schemes that must have known were risky c. This failure to consult was more serious in the light of the 2015 settlement
14. Panel said it was arguable that in the light of this behaviour there could be an increase points deduction but PRL had not asked for this.
15. It wasn't unfair to impose penalties according to regulations (35 pt. deduction for 2 seasons breaches) but 70 if imposed in one season would be disproportionate and -35 sufficient.
16. Reg 16 allows a plea-bargaining process which can mitigate sanctions – S chose not to use this and contested all material points
A. Saracens are a golden shareholder in PRL. They are responsible for its running and regulations as much as any other club and agreed the details of the previous and current salary cap rules. It is ludicrous to allege rules you voluntarily adopt are illegal
B. It is no defence at all to say that you did not deliberately break rules which you agree and over which you have already had to settle previous charges. The panel did not find S innocently broke the rules; it said they were reckless
C. Sanctions were actually minimised by panel from those which could have been imposed strictly.
D. The extra 35-point deduction was imposed for breaches which S admitted would take place this after this judgement
Download the report (sanitised version) from Premiership Rugby web site
https://media-cdn.incrowdsports.com/fa097ce0-fc01-4b01-bbb0-e147ffa67de6.pdf
From Brian Moore Twitter account
Re Saracens and salary cap - anyone who tries to stress that their rule-breaking was not deliberate has not read the full report, or is being dishonest. It is highly critical of the club and to pretend it exonerates them in any way is equally dishonest.
Warning - this is long and might be a bit boring to some but having now read the full 103 pages of Lord Dyson's Saracens salary cap disciplinary panel decision and PRL regulations this is a summary with comments my brief comments at the end.
So you can follow Premiership ("PRL") Saracens ("S") Salary Cap Manager ("SCM") Salary cap year ("SCY") From the judgement I mention the following - 1.Sarries took prelim point that cap unlawful due to competition law
2. However 2 witnesses including Wray said a salary cap was desirable and they were party to original cap and to its retention. Approved changes from 2014/15 onwards.
3.S suggestion of Mark McCafferty’s evidence not credible, inaccurate and untruthful. Dismissed as unjustified.
4.Reg 6.13 if club wishes to clarify meaning or applicability it should contact SCM who is bound to respond
5. SCM decisions reviewed as to reasonableness, not de novo, though in many instances they state they would have decided similar to SCM
6. There are 2 Key clauses re deciding what is salary - a. any payment or benefit in kind which the player would not have received if it were not for his involvement with the club. b. Any loan made to player under which he is not contracted to repay in full within the SCY
7. Of the various schemes that were under dispute full details were not made available to SCM until investigation.
8. Of those schemes - Property investments – negative equity risk born by Wray not player and loan is interest free. Not commercial transactions because parties do not share the risk in the manner of an equity contributor & not similarly available in normal business.
MBN promotion personal appearances – MBN & S very closely associated, owned partly by Wray's daughter - no contract for any of the three years; full sum paid before appearances which, due to no contract, were not obligatory.
9. Because of those findings the payments were properly deemed as salary.
10. The Regulations have set and agreed monetary penalties and points deduction on sliding scale dependent on amount of breach
11. S accepted sanctions for non-disclosure charges
12.PRL said Strict application of sanctions would mean £5.36 m fine and 70-point deduction. (35 for 2 seasons according to agreed scale) Panel said no reason to decrease points deduction for each season for the following reasons -
a. S did not admit breach, challenged each substantive one and submitted Regulations illegal b. Breaches not deliberate but were reckless c. S previously found guilty of refusing to cooperate in 2015 and settled accepting sanctions d. S did not cooperate with SCM
13. Why Panel concluded recklessness - a. Admitted breaches over 4 years of failure to disclose information b. Failure to consult SCM before entering schemes that must have known were risky c. This failure to consult was more serious in the light of the 2015 settlement
14. Panel said it was arguable that in the light of this behaviour there could be an increase points deduction but PRL had not asked for this.
15. It wasn't unfair to impose penalties according to regulations (35 pt. deduction for 2 seasons breaches) but 70 if imposed in one season would be disproportionate and -35 sufficient.
16. Reg 16 allows a plea-bargaining process which can mitigate sanctions – S chose not to use this and contested all material points
A. Saracens are a golden shareholder in PRL. They are responsible for its running and regulations as much as any other club and agreed the details of the previous and current salary cap rules. It is ludicrous to allege rules you voluntarily adopt are illegal
B. It is no defence at all to say that you did not deliberately break rules which you agree and over which you have already had to settle previous charges. The panel did not find S innocently broke the rules; it said they were reckless
C. Sanctions were actually minimised by panel from those which could have been imposed strictly.
D. The extra 35-point deduction was imposed for breaches which S admitted would take place this after this judgement
Download the report (sanitised version) from Premiership Rugby web site
https://media-cdn.incrowdsports.com/fa097ce0-fc01-4b01-bbb0-e147ffa67de6.pdf
Monday 20 January 2020
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)