Saracens Salarygate: Automatic Relegation?

sydthebeat

Stephen Jones doubling down again in his cheerleading for saracens and nigel wray in today's Times.

Its an incredibly embarrassing piece for any professional journalist

He actually said that, as the extra payments were not specifically "to play rugby" then they are not salary boosting at all.

He has lost any shred of credibility he ever had, and I hope he goes down with that cheating ship.

lawrencesummers

sydthebeat wrote: »

Stephen Jones doubling down again in his cheerleading for saracens and nigel wray in today's Times.

Its an incredibly embarrassing piece for any professional journalist

He actually said that, as the extra payments were not specifically "to play rugby" then they are not salary boosting at all.

He has lost any shred of credibility he ever had, and I hope he goes down with that cheating ship.

Fools like him are best left unread

sydthebeat

lawrencesummers wrote: »

Fools like him are best left unread

Theres a definite "rubber necking" element to reading his articles.

But a more serious point, he writes for The Times. His column inches hold lots of weight in public opinion....and are read a lot.
It's important guys like this are called out as just being the antagonists that they are, making a living by being the alternative, regardless of the argument.
In Neil Francis we have our own version.
I have had people both in my work and socially have arguments with me about rugby, where their view is solely based on Francis' articles and his warped opinions.

So these fools ARE read, unfortunately.

Guy:Incognito

2020Vision wrote: »

That argument is predicated on the assumption that a Saracens team playing within the salary cap wouldn't have won the trophies that it won over the past number of years. Which is conjecture rather than fact!

Why didn't they save themselves a lot of money and win by staying within the cap then? What sort of bad business gives away free money?

lawrencesummers

sydthebeat wrote: »

Theres a definite "rubber necking" element to reading his articles.

But a more serious point, he writes for The Times. His column inches hold lots of weight in public opinion....and are read a lot.
It's important guys like this are called out as just being the antagonists that they are, making a living by being the alternative, regardless of the argument.
In Neil Francis we have our own version.
I have had people both in my work and socially have arguments with me about rugby, where their view is solely based on Francis' articles and his warped opinions.

So these fools ARE read, unfortunately.

It’s impossible to have a argument with somebody whose only reference is the homophobic and decidedly average rugby player that Francis is.

People like him and jones rely on clicks. Don’t click.

thomond2006

I despise Jones but he's behind a paywall. He doesn't rely on clicks.

sydthebeat

lawrencesummers wrote: »

It’s impossible to have a argument with somebody whose only reference is the homophobic and decidedly average rugby player that Francis is.

People like him and jones rely on clicks. Don’t click.

The whole point of my post is that Jones writes for a newspaper of merit...and thus his articles hold weight

He's not a clickbait seeker writing for rugbylad....

lawrencesummers

thomond2006 wrote: »

I despise Jones but he's behind a paywall. He doesn't rely on clicks.

Websites behind a paywall still measure, and it’s not just the website but his total social media footprint as well. People following him on Twitter that know he is a buffoon are only paying his wages to remain one.

lawrencesummers

sydthebeat wrote: »

The whole point of my post is that Jones writes for a newspaper of merit...and thus his articles hold weight

He's not a clickbait seeker writing for rugbylad....

The Sunday independent isn’t a rag, But they still give that fruitcake form the Iona institute a platform. If people are not able to separate a journalist from the paper he writes in then ore fool them.

sydthebeat

lawrencesummers wrote: »

The Sunday independent isn’t a rag, But they still give that fruitcake form the Iona institute a platform. If people are not able to separate a journalist from the paper he writes in then ore fool them.

I think you're inadvertently agreeing with my point.

There are a lot of people who associate a certain gravitas to a media outlet, and thus the writers they have.
Because of this, the likes of Jones, Francis, etc should be called out whenever it's warranted.

Otherwise how does the average Joe KNOW that they are just pay packet leeching contrarians.

lawrencesummers

sydthebeat wrote: »

I think you're inadvertently agreeing with my point.

There are a lot of people who associate a certain gravitas to a media outlet, and this the writers they have.
Because of this, the likes of Jones, Francis, etc should be called out whenever it's warranted.

Otherwise how does the average Joe KNOW that they are just pay packet leeching contrarians.

If one doesn’t question a journalist because of the paper he writes for then they have a problem. Just because joe Duffy works for RTÉ doesn’t make him reputable like the team on RTE investigates / prime time are. Most people can separate the individual from the organisation, people didn’t have an issue with the daily mirror / NOTW they had a problem with piers Morgan.

Clegg

They're losing 0-17 to Harlequins after 22 minutes.

razorblunt

Clegg wrote: »

They're losing 0-17 to Harlequins after 22 minutes.

Harlequins lucky not to have got a yellow before Sarries scored but all sympathy is gone as a) it’s Sarries and b] Lozowski jumped into a tackle and rolled to score.

Clegg

34-14 Harlequins

Clegg

Dombrandt has been excellent. Best forward on the pitch. Would like to know what Jones doesn't fancy about his game.

Clegg

41-14 Harlequins. Saracens pushing to keep the ball in play and get a try. Their player throws a speculative offload, it's intercepted and Harlequins run over.

Dave_The_Sheep

That must be tasty for Quins fans in the stadium.

sydthebeat

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

That must be tasty for everybody but sarries fans.

FYP

Squidgy Black

Some performance by Quins, really shows the gap between the Premiership and the championship!

BonnieSituation

Marcus Smith was unplayable. Fantastic watch.

razorblunt

The veil is slipping big time at Sarries. Jackson Wray stood down by Luke Pearce as captain with 2 mins left as he felt their communication had broken down. He was right too. Talk about being put in your place.

Squidgy Black

razorblunt wrote: »

The veil is slipping big time at Sarries. Jackson Wray stood down by Luke Pearce as captain with 2 mins left as he felt their communication had broken down. He was right too. Talk about being put in your place.

Brutal stuff by Wray. Refusing to talk to Pearce and just chatting back to him when Pearce asked if he wanted to work with him.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/eu95lc/luke_pearce_relegates_wray_from_being_captain_and/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Buer

The place must be in complete disarray. It'll be interesting to see how they manage to steady the ship in the coming weeks. I don't care if they have a rake of stars to come back after the 6N...if the place is toxic, they can't just flick a switch to fix that. It needs to be addressed now.

It was a heavily weakened side but there's not a hope in hell that selection has 40 put on them by Quins a month ago. It still had multiple capped players throughout. I expected it to be a relatively close contest.

sydthebeat

Bookies only had 2 points between them before the game.


You'd have to question how a player can be mentally with nothing to play for before a game.

Squidgy Black

Buer wrote: »

The place must be in complete disarray. It'll be interesting to see how they manage to steady the ship in the coming weeks. I don't care if they have a rake of stars to come back after the 6N...if the place is toxic, they can't just flick a switch to fix that. It needs to be addressed now.

It was a heavily weakened side but there's not a hope in hell that selection has 40 put on them by Quins a month ago. It still had multiple capped players throughout. I expected it to be a relatively close contest.

Wasn't even a full strength Quins team either. Missing Chisolm, Campagnaro, Sinckler, Marler, Ibitoye.

razorblunt

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Brutal stuff by Wray. Refusing to talk to Pearce and just chatting back to him when Pearce asked if he wanted to work with him.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/eu95lc/luke_pearce_relegates_wray_from_being_captain_and/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Lost his head big time.
Pearce was well able for him and Sarries in general, they were a bit boisterous in the first half but he slapped them down.

BonnieSituation

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Brutal stuff by Wray. Refusing to talk to Pearce and just chatting back to him when Pearce asked if he wanted to work with him.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/eu95lc/luke_pearce_relegates_wray_from_being_captain_and/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Love this comment underneath:

"At this point it's just a discriminatory witch hunt conspiracy against anyone named Wray."

-Stephen Jones, probably.

---

I must say I've really warmed to Pearce as a ref over the last year or so.

His performances have been top drawer.

lawrencesummers

razorblunt wrote: »

Lost his head big time.
Pearce was well able for him and Sarries in general, they were a bit boisterous in the first half but he slapped them down.

Luke Pearce is a brilliant ref. I felt he should have been given more responsibility at the World Cup, he is always calm and collected and I’ve never seen him have a bad game. His demeanour is positive and he listens and talks well with players

thomond2006

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Brutal stuff by Wray. Refusing to talk to Pearce and just chatting back to him when Pearce asked if he wanted to work with him.

https://www.reddit.com/r/rugbyunion/comments/eu95lc/luke_pearce_relegates_wray_from_being_captain_and/?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share

Feed me more.

Exclamation Marc

sydthebeat wrote: »

Bookies only had 2 points between them before the game.


You'd have to question how a player can be mentally with nothing to play for before a game.

I think a lot of these players do have something to play for and that's a transfer at the end of the season. You imagine most if not all are in the shop window or being walked out so they'll need to show that they'd be good acquisitions otherwise they'll find it hard to find a club next year.

thomond2006

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

I think a lot of these players do have something to play for and that's a transfer at the end of the season. You imagine most if not all are in the shop window or being walked out so they'll need to show that they'd be good acquisitions otherwise they'll find it hard to find a club next year.

I imagine once they agree a deal elsewhere they'll phone it in or do the minimum while still at Saracens.

Stolen from Reddit, gave me a good laugh anyhow

pickarooney

That Vahaamahina meme is going to get a new lease of life.

Buer

Reports on Saracens forum on a number of their players and who is interested in them:

Ben Spencer (Bath and Exeter); Alex Lozowski (Gloucester and Sale); Nick Isiekwe (Harlequins); Max Malins (Exeter); Nick Tompkins (Ospreys); Matt Gallagher (Munster); Rhys Carre (Cardiff); George Kruis (Japan); Jack Singleton (Leicester).

Spencer to Bath would make a lot of sense for them. It's a significant weakness for them. Based on the above, it would appear that Saracens are hoping to retain the majority of their big name stars and it's the guys who just a tier below that who are potentially on their way out. The majority of the above are still capped internationals with a lot of quality.

If they offloaded the above along with Liam Williams, I could very easily see them being under the salary cap. They could absorb a lot of the above too without damaging their starting team too much also although Spencer would be a big loss given Wigglesworth is on the verge of retirement. It would definitely hurt them for the test windows though. I would imagine a number of academy guys will be seeing a lot of game time next season to blood them for the return to the top flight.

Zzippy

Buer wrote: »

Reports on Saracens forum on a number of their players and who is interested in them:

Ben Spencer (Bath and Exeter); Alex Lozowski (Gloucester and Sale); Nick Isiekwe (Harlequins); Max Malins (Exeter); Nick Tompkins (Ospreys); Matt Gallagher (Munster); Rhys Carre (Cardiff); George Kruis (Japan); Jack Singleton (Leicester).

Spencer to Bath would make a lot of sense for them. It's a significant weakness for them. Based on the above, it would appear that Saracens are hoping to retain the majority of their big name stars and it's the guys who just a tier below that who are potentially on their way out. The majority of the above are still capped internationals with a lot of quality.

If they offloaded the above along with Liam Williams, I could very easily see them being under the salary cap. They could absorb a lot of the above too without damaging their starting team too much also although Spencer would be a big loss given Wigglesworth is on the verge of retirement. It would definitely hurt them for the test windows though. I would imagine a number of academy guys will be seeing a lot of game time next season to blood them for the return to the top flight.

Reportedly they will have to spend two seasons in the Championship, if they cannot prove compliance with the salary cap for this season. Can't see the big stars staying around for that.

Buer

Zzippy wrote: »

Reportedly they will have to spend two seasons in the Championship, if they cannot prove compliance with the salary cap for this season. Can't see the big stars staying around for that.

Fair point. It's all very quiet on that front though. It was discussed a lot initially but mainly on social media and I haven't seen any official comment on it or it gain much traction in the print media.

If they're going to be gone for 2 years, I would have expected it to be a lot more pointedly discussed at this point.

Iscreamkone

I always thought that the IRFU funding multiple teams was a little iffy too. No way would someone be allowed to bankroll competing football teams.
Often, say Leinster players are rested on orders from up high - this could benefit their opponents say Munster who are also run by the IRFU.
The optics are not good imo

aloooof

Iscreamkone wrote: »

I always thought that the IRFU funding multiple teams was a little iffy too. No way would someone be allowed to bankroll competing football teams.
Often, say Leinster players are rested on orders from up high - this could benefit their opponents say Munster who are also run by the IRFU.
The optics are not good imo

I think this came up before (possibly when Altrad tried to buy Gloucester?) and as far as I can recall, World Rugby's response was essentially that it's a different scenario as the IRFU are the union and have much more of a vested interest in growing the game.

Former Former

Zzippy wrote: »

Reportedly they will have to spend two seasons in the Championship, if they cannot prove compliance with the salary cap for this season. Can't see the big stars staying around for that.

I don't believe this will be the case. The rules were not written for this scenario and it would be punishing them twice over for the same offence.

Zzippy

Former Former wrote: »

I don't believe this will be the case. The rules were not written for this scenario and it would be punishing them twice over for the same offence.

Considering they've been over the cap for 5 of the last 6 seasons, I don't think too many people would shed a tear about that. You're probably right on the first point, PRL will find a way around the regulation that states teams must show compliance with the cap for the previous two seasons in order to be promoted. Sarries are too big a draw wrt TV etc to be allowed languish in the Championship for two years.

Buer

Bernard Jackman made an interesting point (I know, I know) on The42.ie podcast about how badly PLR have handled the whole thing and created an impossible situation for Saracens. They handed out the deduction and fine in November at which point it was thought to the only sanction. They were then asked to make efforts to bring their squad within the cap. As Jackman said, there's simply no way Saracens could do that. They would be reliant on other teams agreeing to take players off their hands which would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. The French teams would have had their squads filled at that point. They could contact every club in Europe but would struggle to move anyone on mid-season.

A few months pass and the additional sanctions are announced with Saracens relegated. This completely flips the situation on its head. Up to that point, Saracens were all in on the league and Europe was secondary. Now the league is over for them and Europe is paramount. Because of this, they've already finished runner up in their pool and scraped into the knock outs with the single toughest possible fixture ahead of them. The lack of clarity and decisive action by PRL is pretty poor. It appears that they may have bowed to pressure from the other clubs/stakeholders who ramped up the scrutiny to get Saracens relegated against the reports recommendations.

Where I totally disagree with him (that feels better), is his claim that the other teams would have fully believe the 35 point deduction would be sufficient to relegate Saracens. A 35 point deduction would never have been sufficient to relegate them in the past few seasons. He went as far to claim that the other clubs would have done their sums and figured the 35 point would have toppled them.

Exclamation Marc

Zzippy wrote: »

Considering they've been over the cap for 5 of the last 6 seasons, I don't think too many people would shed a tear about that. You're probably right on the first point, PRL will find a way around the regulation that states teams must show compliance with the cap for the previous two seasons in order to be promoted. Sarries are too big a draw wrt TV etc to be allowed languish in the Championship for two years.

This is the same league who's stakeholders forced them down there above the recommended sanction. They're still as bitter and wont have a sudden change of heart and feel bad for them.

Quin_Dub

Zzippy wrote: »

Considering they've been over the cap for 5 of the last 6 seasons, I don't think too many people would shed a tear about that. You're probably right on the first point, PRL will find a way around the regulation that states teams must show compliance with the cap for the previous two seasons in order to be promoted. Sarries are too big a draw wrt TV etc to be allowed languish in the Championship for two years.

Sarries are only a draw because of the Marquee players - If it's confirmed that they are down for two years those guys are gone to other clubs - Saracens the club aren't the attraction , it's the players and they will leave if it will be 2 years in the Championship and 4 years before they get to play in Europe again

Exclamation Marc wrote: »

This is the same league who's stakeholders forced them down there above the recommended sanction. They're still as bitter and wont have a sudden change of heart and feel bad for them.

Yeah.. I'm not seeing the other PRL clubs showing Saracens much mercy to be honest. Why would they?

Buer

Buer wrote: »

Bernard Jackman made an interesting point (I know, I know) on The42.ie podcast about how badly PLR have handled the whole thing and created an impossible situation for Saracens. They handed out the deduction and fine in November at which point it was thought to the only sanction. They were then asked to make efforts to bring their squad within the cap. As Jackman said, there's simply no way Saracens could do that. They would be reliant on other teams agreeing to take players off their hands which would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. The French teams would have had their squads filled at that point. They could contact every club in Europe but would struggle to move anyone on mid-season.

A few months pass and the additional sanctions are announced with Saracens relegated. This completely flips the situation on its head. Up to that point, Saracens were all in on the league and Europe was secondary. Now the league is over for them and Europe is paramount. Because of this, they've already finished runner up in their pool and scraped into the knock outs with the single toughest possible fixture ahead of them. The lack of clarity and decisive action by PRL is pretty poor. It appears that they may have bowed to pressure from the other clubs/stakeholders who ramped up the scrutiny to get Saracens relegated against the reports recommendations.

Where I totally disagree with him (that feels better), is his claim that the other teams would have fully believe the 35 point deduction would be sufficient to relegate Saracens. A 35 point deduction would never have been sufficient to relegate them in the past few seasons. He went as far to claim that the other clubs would have done their sums and figured the 35 point would have toppled them.

I think Sarries refusing to acknowledge fault after the initial sanction and ultimately dragging this out as they have is a critical aspect to how the sanction process has unfolded.

Wrays initial response would have led me to believe the cap would continue to be broken.

There is a reason why the new executive is being far more open about their transgressions.

Buer

Buer wrote: »

Bernard Jackman made an interesting point (I know, I know) on The42.ie podcast about how badly PLR have handled the whole thing and created an impossible situation for Saracens. They handed out the deduction and fine in November at which point it was thought to the only sanction. They were then asked to make efforts to bring their squad within the cap. As Jackman said, there's simply no way Saracens could do that. They would be reliant on other teams agreeing to take players off their hands which would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. The French teams would have had their squads filled at that point. They could contact every club in Europe but would struggle to move anyone on mid-season.

A few months pass and the additional sanctions are announced with Saracens relegated. This completely flips the situation on its head. Up to that point, Saracens were all in on the league and Europe was secondary. Now the league is over for them and Europe is paramount. Because of this, they've already finished runner up in their pool and scraped into the knock outs with the single toughest possible fixture ahead of them. The lack of clarity and decisive action by PRL is pretty poor. It appears that they may have bowed to pressure from the other clubs/stakeholders who ramped up the scrutiny to get Saracens relegated against the reports recommendations.

Where I totally disagree with him (that feels better), is his claim that the other teams would have fully believe the 35 point deduction would be sufficient to relegate Saracens. A 35 point deduction would never have been sufficient to relegate them in the past few seasons. He went as far to claim that the other clubs would have done their sums and figured the 35 point would have toppled them.

I completely agree that Saracens were put in an impossible situation. Especially since any contracts broken with players would also count towards the salary cap. The simple response to this argument is they shouldn't have broke the rules in the first place.

Buer

Deleted User wrote: »

I think Sarries refusing to acknowledge fault after the initial sanction and ultimately dragging this out as they have is a critical aspect to how the sanction process has unfolded.

Wrays initial response would have led me to believe the cap would continue to be broken.

There is a reason why the new executive is being far more open about their transgressions.

Oh, I agree they're absolutely culpable and contributed to their own downfall with their lack of contrition. I'm playing devil's advocate somewhat and I thought the points made on the podcast were interesting i.e. Saracens are absolutely guilty and deserve punishment but the handling of the whole affair by the authorities was quite amateur.

thomond2006

Saracens broke the rules and the other clubs wanted blood. Both can be true I guess.

Buer

Buer wrote: »

Oh, I agree they're absolutely culpable and contributed to their own downfall with their lack of contrition. I'm playing devil's advocate somewhat and I thought the points made on the podcast were interesting i.e. Saracens are absolutely guilty and deserve punishment but the handling of the whole affair by the authorities was quite amateur.

I'm not sure what else the PRL could have done. This reminds me of that player a few seasons ago who was cited. Pled guilty and got a reduction, then bad mouthed the process online and had the penalty increased subsequently.

Had Sarries immediately taken urgent steps and had been seen to do their best to address the cap issue then some flexibility may have been forthcoming.

They went the total opposite direction however.

sydthebeat

Buer wrote: »

Bernard Jackman made an interesting point (I know, I know) on The42.ie podcast about how badly PLR have handled the whole thing and created an impossible situation for Saracens. They handed out the deduction and fine in November at which point it was thought to the only sanction. They were then asked to make efforts to bring their squad within the cap. As Jackman said, there's simply no way Saracens could do that. They would be reliant on other teams agreeing to take players off their hands which would be like turkeys voting for Christmas. The French teams would have had their squads filled at that point. They could contact every club in Europe but would struggle to move anyone on mid-season.

.

correct me if im wrong, but isnt it only players who actually play in the premiership whos salary is counted towards the salary cap?

so in that case, it was up to saracens to organise themselves who they would play to the max of the salary cap......

if that meant giving certain players a season long sabbatical, so be it.

CIARAN_BOYLE

sydthebeat wrote: »

correct me if im wrong, but isnt it only players who actually play in the premiership whos salary is counted towards the salary cap?

so in that case, it was up to saracens to organise themselves who they would play to the max of the salary cap......

if that meant giving certain players a season long sabbatical, so be it.

That would be a much better argument if the judgement came 2 weeks earlier (before the return of the world cup winners).