Saracens docked 35 points and fined £5.3m for breaching salary cap rules

[Nearly Sane]

Be interested to see how this plays out


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50300756

[jeremyp]

Yeah, that's a bit of a shocker. Based on the 2018-2019 points, Saracens would probably end up mid table...

But if they have to lose some players because of the fine and/or having to reduce their wage bill, it could be much worse for them.

[Nearly Sane]

Danny Care arguing that Saracens should have titles removed - makes sense to me


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50329516

[jeremyp]

Danny Care arguing that Saracens should have titles removed - makes sense to me


https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/50329516

I was listening to him on the Rugby Union Weekly podcast earlier this week. He feels really strongly about it and I can see his point of view. Firstly he cites a few instances of Harlequins (his team) losing players to Saracens because Saracens could pay them more money. Then he points out the fact that players in clubs other than Saracens must feel as if they are on a hiding to nothing.

As things stand the punishment is suspended because Saracens have asked for a review of the decision (as is their right) which means that The Premiership is kind of in limbo. For example opposing teams are likely to ask "is the squad that we have to face this weekend legal or illegal?" What happens if it drags out to the play offs?

For the good of the game, Saracens should have sucked it up.

[jeremyp]

They're also in trouble for not showing up to the European Champions Cup launch, which they won last year.

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/saracens-salary-cap-champions-cup-17208417

[ProfessorDavey]

I think this is a lot more complicated than it may seem at first.

One of the challenges in club rugby (and also cricket) is that club competitions continue during international weekends. So the best clubs tend to have many of their best player simply unavailable for a whole swathe of matches throughout the season. The point being, in relation to Care's view, is that you cannot assume that had Saracens not paid top dollar for top players (who wouldn't be able to play in a whole load of games) that they'd necessarily have failed to win those trophies. We are working in the world of complex multiple hypotheticals.

It isn't the same as an individual sport where, for example, that individual had been found to have take illegal performance enhancing drugs. A club isn't an individual.

So - no I don't think they should be tripped of their previous trophies - that is a step too far in revisionist history. If they have broken the financial rules then the appropriate penalty is financial and points deduction.

But there is a wider point that goes to the heart of the current somewhat muddled, part professional, part amateur approach that seems to permeate rugby. That is whether the sport should fully embrace a professional approach, which would mean considering whether such a salary cap is reasonable and secondly whether the notion of continuing with club competitions during international weekends is tenable as it seems to completely distort the club competitions and their attractiveness to a wider fan base. If you want to attract new fans to start going to watch club rugby (which is the mainstay of the sport and its finances) then they will want to see the stars - how can it be right that Saracens played London Irish in the Premiership last Saturday, fielding effectively a 2nd 15 because all their stars were on the other side of the world playing in the World Cup Final.

[Nearly Sane]

I think this is a lot more complicated than it may seem at first.

One of the challenges in club rugby (and also cricket) is that club competitions continue during international weekends. So the best clubs tend to have many of their best player simply unavailable for a whole swathe of matches throughout the season. The point being, in relation to Care's view, is that you cannot assume that had Saracens not paid top dollar for top players (who wouldn't be able to play in a whole load of games) that they'd necessarily have failed to win those trophies. We are working in the world of complex multiple hypotheticals.

It isn't the same as an individual sport where, for example, that individual had been found to have take illegal performance enhancing drugs. A club isn't an individual.

So - no I don't think they should be tripped of their previous trophies - that is a step too far in revisionist history. If they have broken the financial rules then the appropriate penalty is financial and points deduction.

But there is a wider point that goes to the heart of the current somewhat muddled, part professional, part amateur approach that seems to permeate rugby. That is whether the sport should fully embrace a professional approach, which would mean considering whether such a salary cap is reasonable and secondly whether the notion of continuing with club competitions during international weekends is tenable as it seems to completely distort the club competitions and their attractiveness to a wider fan base. If you want to attract new fans to start going to watch club rugby (which is the mainstay of the sport and its finances) then they will want to see the stars - how can it be right that Saracens played London Irish in the Premiership last Saturday, fielding effectively a 2nd 15 because all their stars were on the other side of the world playing in the World Cup Final.

But is a club has cheated its way to a trophy- then why should the trophies remain - the breach was when they won them so the punishment should surely apply to then?

[ProfessorDavey]

But is a club has cheated its way to a trophy- then why should the trophies remain - the breach was when they won them so the punishment should surely apply to then?

But you are assuming hypotheticals - 'a club has cheated its way to a trophy' - which implies that had they not cheated then they wouldn't have won the trophy. That isn't an argument that can be sustained as we simply don't know - and as I have pointed out I suspect the players key to that 'cheating' (the top name players) were probably not available to play in club matches for large swathes of the season.

There is another problem - if you are to strip them of their title, how do you determine what (retrospectively) should happen - do you just give the title to the second placed team. Do you make all their games null and void (which may give a different outcome of champion that simply giving it to the second placed side), which would potentially affect every position, including relegation and cup competitions. It would be a nightmare and you'd end up in endless legal wrangles with clubs claiming that they shouldn't have been relegates, would have been successful in obtaining a place in a European competition etc.

As in other sports I think the appropriate penalty for financial irregularity is financial and points deduction in the current season. That is fair and clear.

In the interests of more general discussion would you like to tell us your views on the points I mentioned about unavailability of club players.

[Nearly Sane]

But you are assuming hypotheticals - 'a club has cheated its way to a trophy' - which implies that had they not cheated then they wouldn't have won the trophy. That isn't an argument that can be sustained as we simply don't know - and as I have pointed out I suspect the players key to that 'cheating' (the top name players) were probably not available to play in club matches for large swathes of the season.

There is another problem - if you are to strip them of their title, how do you determine what (retrospectively) should happen - do you just give the title to the second placed team. Do you make all their games null and void (which may give a different outcome of champion that simply giving it to the second placed side), which would potentially affect every position, including relegation and cup competitions. It would be a nightmare and you'd end up in endless legal wrangles with clubs claiming that they shouldn't have been relegates, would have been successful in obtaining a place in a European competition etc.

As in other sports I think the appropriate penalty for financial irregularity is financial and points deduction in the current season. That is fair and clear.

In the interests of more general discussion would you like to tell us your views on the points I mentioned about unavailability of club players.

They won  trophies while cheating - it's irrelevant whether they might have won it if they didn't. Allowing them to keep the trophies gives tacit approval to their actions.

Lance Armstrong might have won some of the Tour De Frances he participated in without doping.

[ProfessorDavey]

They won  trophies while cheating - it's irrelevant whether they might have won it if they didn't. Allowing them to keep the trophies gives tacit approval to their actions.

No it doesn't - the sanction for their financial cheating is applied in a different manner.

Lance Armstrong might have won some of the Tour De Frances he participated in without doping.

I'm sorry - there is no comparison. Armstrong was taking performance enhancing drugs, Saracens paid their players more than they should. They aren't the same type of indiscretion - one directly affects performance, the other doesn't.

In the words of Gilbert and Sullivan - make the punishment fit the crime.

So direct use of performance enhancing drugs equal strip titles.

Financial irregularity equals financial sanction and ongoing points deduction.

Inappropriate activity in transfer market (e.g. Chelsea), ban from future transfer activity for a period of time. And let's consider this last one, Chelsea - by your argument as they were 'cheating' in the transfer market over a number of years then you should surely think the sanction would be to strip them of their titles over that period, presumably including Premier League and Europa League. In which case other competitions would have been affected, for example Chelsea are only in this seasons Champions League by virtue of winning last season's Europa league.

And what about circumstances where a team cheats by breaching salary cap regulations, but doesn't win any trophies - you have to be consistent - they'd get off scot free if you apply the strip them of their titles sanction rather than the financial penalty and ongoing points deduction.

[jeremyp]

I'm sorry - there is no comparison. Armstrong was taking performance enhancing drugs, Saracens paid their players more than they should. They aren't the same type of indiscretion - one directly affects performance, the other doesn't.

Lance Armstrong used illegal means to make his body fitter for cycling. Saracens used illegal means to make their squad better at playing rugby union. I don't see any real distinction.

Both directly affected performance: in one case of an individual and in the other case of a team.

And what about circumstances where a team cheats by breaching salary cap regulations, but doesn't win any trophies - you have to be consistent - they'd get off scot free if you apply the strip them of their titles sanction rather than the financial penalty and ongoing points deduction.

It's not an either or situation. Lance Armstrong received a lengthy ban and was also stripped of his Tour de France victories. A lesser cyclist would just receive the ban.

[jeremyp]

One of the challenges in club rugby (and also cricket) is that club competitions continue during international weekends. So the best clubs tend to have many of their best player simply unavailable for a whole swathe of matches throughout the season.

The salary cap is extended by £80,000 for each player that gets called up for international duty. You can argue that it is not enough but it is taken into account.

[ProfessorDavey]

Lance Armstrong used illegal means to make his body fitter for cycling. Saracens used illegal means to make their squad better at playing rugby union. I don't see any real distinction.

Both directly affected performance: in one case of an individual and in the other case of a team.

I disagree as paying someone a little more in their wages isn't overtly and directly 'performance enhancing'.

But let's move on from that point and maybe you could answer whether you think that Saracens should be stripped of all the titles they won in the years of alleged financial irregularities. And if so:

1. Do you think that the second placed team should be given the title
2. Or all their matches be declared null and void
3. What do you do with the team who should have qualified for European competition but didn't (as every team would move up one place) - they will no doubt claim compensation as it would be unfair to allow a team that didn't win the championship to be declared champions but not the team who finished one place outside the European qualifying to be considered to have qualified.
4. How far do you go - should any financial irregularity outside the laws of the competition mean instant disqualification (or loss of title). Who and how would a decision be made as to which breaches of the rules result in expulsion (or loss of title) and which don't.

Seems to me sanctions need to be appropriate, proportionate, fair and justifiable. Financial sanction and points deduction (which is in effect a further financial sanction as well as a performance one) seems appropriate, fair and proportionate. Retrospectively removing titles for an misdemeanour which isn't overtly and directly performance enhancing doesn't seem to be.

[Nearly Sane]

Big Sarries fan, then, Prof.

[ProfessorDavey]

The salary cap is extended by £80,000 for each player that gets called up for international duty. You can argue that it is not enough but it is taken into account.

Hmm - not sure it is enough or even relevant and actually my point wasn't about salary cap, but the broader issue that top club competitions shouldn't be happening at the same time as international matches (as happens in football and loads of other sports).

But on whether this is compensation - I can't see how it is. Say you are a top team with a world class scrum half. You'd expect to have that world class scrum half available to play in all your games. But you can't as he is absent for loads of matches due to international commitment. So you'd want to have another world class scrum half as replacement. Well first any top player will want to play so you wont be able to attract another equivalent level scrum half who will only be able to play when your number one scrum half is on international duty. But also if the replacement is that good, he will almost certainly also be an international so he also wont be available when you need him to be.

Have a look at the team Saracens put out last Saturday and then look at the (I think) ten Saracens players who were playing on the same day, but in the World cup final.

[ProfessorDavey]

Big Sarries fan, then, Prof.

Not at all - I don't support any rugby club team.

[Nearly Sane]

Not at all - I don't support any rugby club team.

Except Saracens

[ProfessorDavey]

Except Saracens

Nope, including Saracens. In fact until I looked it up as part of this thread I wouldn't even have been able to tell you who had won the various club competitions over the past few years. And I gather from the news this morning that there were a load of club games last night - I hadn't a clue until this morning that those games were even taking place. I was however avidly following Norwich v Watford on BBC web-site.

In my whole life I think I've only been to perhaps five rugby club games (very bizarre experience for a regular football fan I have to tell you) - all were at either Harlequins or Cardiff. I've never been to see Saracens although they are relatively local.

So nope, I'm not a Saracens fan - I'm not a fan of any rugby club (unlike football and cricket).

[ProfessorDavey]

They won  trophies while cheating - it's irrelevant whether they might have won it if they didn't. Allowing them to keep the trophies gives tacit approval to their actions.

There is a further reason why your view and that of Danny Care is untenable - it would mean the Rugby authorities would be breaking their own rules.

The regulations around the salary cap are clearly set out (and every club has signed up to them), including the sanction for any breach which under the regulations can be a fine (the magnitude of which relates to the amount of the breach of the salary cap) and a points deduction (also which relates to the amount of the breach of the salary cap). If the rugby authorities were to arbitrarily and retrospectively apply a completely different sanction (stripping a title) that would be a breach of their own regulations.

If the rugby authorities have rules and expect their clubs to abide by them, they must also abide by the rules they have set in terms of sanction for clubs breaking those rules.

Sure you can argue that the rules should be changed for future seasons (I'd disagree, but you can argue it), what you cannot argue is that the current rules should be arbitrarily changed retrospectively to apply a sanction that isn't allowed under those rules.

[jeremyp]

I disagree as paying someone a little more in their wages isn't overtly and directly 'performance enhancing'.

It's not paying somebody a little more, it's getting more and better players because you can pay them more than the clubs obeying the rules.

But let's move on from that point and maybe you could answer whether you think that Saracens should be stripped of all the titles they won in the years of alleged financial irregularities.

I have to admit I keep changing my mind on the subject. On balance, I probably wouldn't unless it was a possible sanction that is set out in the rules. Also, it is hard to judge what the extent of a punishment should be unless you know the severity of the transgression, which we don't.

And if so:

1. Do you think that the second placed team should be given the title
2. Or all their matches be declared null and void
3. What do you do with the team who should have qualified for European competition but didn't (as every team would move up one place) - they will no doubt claim compensation as it would be unfair to allow a team that didn't win the championship to be declared champions but not the team who finished one place outside the European qualifying to be considered to have qualified.
4. How far do you go - should any financial irregularity outside the laws of the competition mean instant disqualification (or loss of title). Who and how would a decision be made as to which breaches of the rules result in expulsion (or loss of title) and which don't.

If I were going to strip them of their titles, I would just erase their name from the record books, much like what the Tour de France organisers did with Lance Armstrong. I wouldn't change anything else.

Retrospectively removing titles for an misdemeanour which isn't overtly and directly performance enhancing doesn't seem to be.

It is performance enhancing.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's not paying somebody a little more, it's getting more and better players because you can pay them more than the clubs obeying the rules.

The primary reason for a salary cap in rugby (and in other sports), as stated in their own regulations, is to ensure financial sustainability of clubs - in other words preventing them from living beyond their means and going bust. At best your suggestion that it is somehow performance enhancing is very much a secondary issue.

The issue of salary is that it is money that flows out of the clubs, unlike transfer fees which are largely just a money-go-round. A salary cap merely prevents unsustainable inflationary pressures, it has limited effect on the richest clubs being able to afford the most expensive (in salary terms) players unless the salary cap is set at an incredibly low level.

I have to admit I keep changing my mind on the subject. On balance, I probably wouldn't unless it was a possible sanction that is set out in the rules.

Which is my point above - the premiership set the rules each season and all the clubs sign up to those rules. For the salary cap those rules clearly state the sanctions for breaching the rules, and those sanctions are part of the rules. They do not allow a team to have their title removed and therefore to suggest this for a transgression in previous seasons would be as much a breach of the rules as Saracens overspending on salary.

Also, it is hard to judge what the extent of a punishment should be unless you know the severity of the transgression, which we don't.

I guess we will know more once the appeal is considered. I cannot imagine this will be a straight down the line busting of the salary cap as the level is very clear. I imagine this is some smoke and mirrors approach that attempts to off-book salary into something else.

If I were going to strip them of their titles, I would just erase their name from the record books, much like what the Tour de France organisers did with Lance Armstrong. I wouldn't change anything else.

I agree with that - effectively there is no champion. I don't like this situation where an Olympic athlete years after the games gets told that suddenly they've won a medal.

It is performance enhancing.

See above.

Worth noting in last season's Football Premier league the team that spent the most on salary came 6th, just above a team ranked 14th in spending terms. The link between salary spend and performance is simply not that clear cut - far greater issues are at play.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think it is pretty clear that the issue here is primarily one of financial sustainability. This from the Rugby Premiership's own site on the salary cap:

'Salary Caps exist in many commercially successful sports around the world. The most obvious examples are the NFL and NHL in the USA, and the NRL and AFL in Australia. The introduction in football of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play and the Premier League clubs’ new financial regulations, together with Salary Caps in Rugby League, County Cricket, French Rugby Union’s Top 14, and the Welsh Regions in rugby union, all demonstrate how European sport has recently grasped the importance of controlling costs and long-term financial sustainability.'

And they are right to be concerned about clubs going bust:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/apr/08/exeter-in-the-black-premiership-rugby-losses-year-to-june-2018

[jeremyp]

I think it is pretty clear that the issue here is primarily one of financial sustainability. This from the Rugby Premiership's own site on the salary cap:

'Salary Caps exist in many commercially successful sports around the world. The most obvious examples are the NFL and NHL in the USA, and the NRL and AFL in Australia. The introduction in football of UEFA’s Financial Fair Play and the Premier League clubs’ new financial regulations, together with Salary Caps in Rugby League, County Cricket, French Rugby Union’s Top 14, and the Welsh Regions in rugby union, all demonstrate how European sport has recently grasped the importance of controlling costs and long-term financial sustainability.'

And they are right to be concerned about clubs going bust:

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2019/apr/08/exeter-in-the-black-premiership-rugby-losses-year-to-june-2018

Why are you banging on about this still? You know Nearly Sane and I are right about this one. Yes, the salary cap is in place for financial sustainability, but that doesn't mean it does not affect performance on the sports field. Not only that, success on the sports field leads to better financial sustainability. If all clubs agree to a set of rules and one club breaks the rules and that leads to more sporting success, that club is cheating. Sorry, but that's the end of it.

[ProfessorDavey]

Why are you banging on about this still? You know Nearly Sane and I are right about this one.

Right about what Jeremy? And you and NS don't seem to agree - he thinks that Saracens should be stripped of their titles (in a clear breach of the rules and regulations set out by the Rugby Premiership authorities and signed up to by all the clubs). As far as I can see (see reply 19) you appear to think, as I do, that Saracens should receive a fine and points deduction as set out in the Premiership's rules, but not stripped of their titles.

Yes, the salary cap is in place for financial sustainability,

Agreed and that is the primary reason it is in place

but that doesn't mean it does not affect performance on the sports field.

Pure speculation - if you are to make that claim you need to provide some evidence - see below.

Not only that, success on the sports field leads to better financial sustainability.

Not sure that is true - pretty well all premiership clubs are only sustainable due to the deep pockets of their owners. As I indicated in my link all but one club are making a loss, Exeter being the exception. And the clubs with the biggest losses finished 1st, 3rd and 4th. The clubs with the smallest losses (Exeter excepted) finished mid table or lower. If there is any correlation it is that better performance on the sports field correlates with worse financial position (noting that correlation doesn't necessarily equate to causation).   

If all clubs agree to a set of rules and one club breaks the rules and that leads to more sporting success, that club is cheating.

See the bit in emphasis - you are making a completely un-evidenced assertion. You have no evidence that the cheating, in this case greater salary spending, leads to more sporting success. Indeed there is no evidence of association, let alone causation.

Again look at the details on financial performance for the 2017/18 season I linked to, and we can add in end of season finishing position in the table. So the team who spent the most on salary (Harlequins) finished 10th of 12th. The top team (in the table) were ranked just 5th in salary spending and Newcastle, who finished 4th were the 3rd lowest spenders. There is no correlation between finishing table position and salary spend.

Also worth noting that as the rules are very clear we can reverse engineer the level of the additional salary Saracens were fined for. The rule is £3 fine for £1 of additional spend - so their £5.36M fine, equates to £1.78M overspend on salary, over 3 years or an average of £595k per year. Add that the the £12.6M Saracens declared for the year in the link (the mid year of their fine period) and you get an actual salary spend of £13.2M, which would place them 3rd in the salary spend ranking, below Harlequins who finished 10th and Wasps who finished 3rd.

So sure there is evidence they broke the rules on salary cap and (unless they win their appeal) they should be sanctioned with fine and points deduction as per the premiership rules. However there is nothing to substantiate your claim that the additional salary spending led to more sporting success as you imply.

[jeremyp]

Right about what Jeremy? And you and NS don't seem to agree

We agree that breaching the salary cap rules is performance enhancing.

- he thinks that Saracens should be stripped of their titles (in a clear breach of the rules and regulations set out by the Rugby Premiership authorities and signed up to by all the clubs). As far as I can see (see reply 19) you appear to think, as I do, that Saracens should receive a fine and points deduction as set out in the Premiership's rules, but not stripped of their titles.

As a general principle, I don't agree with making up punishments after the fact. If it's not a sanctioned punishment, you can't apply it.

Pure speculation - if you are to make that claim you need to provide some evidence - see below.

If you ignore the salary cap, you can afford more and better players.

However there is nothing to substantiate your claim that the additional salary spending led to more sporting success as you imply.

So all those millions of pounds that the EPL football clubs spend are wasted? Liverpool would still be at the top if they cut their wage bill in half?