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

[ProfessorDavey]

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

One thing that is certain is that neither you nor NS have provided any evidence to support your assertion that breaching the salary cap enhances performance, indeed you haven't even provided any evidence that greater spend on salaries in the rugby premiership is associated with better performance. I, on the other hand, have provided evidence that rebuts that assertion.

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.

Good - I agree with you.

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

Which is effectively saying that if you spend more money on salaries you can afford more and better players, and therefore presumably will achieve better results in the premiership.

Problem for you is that the evidence doesn't bear this out. So in the year where we have the stats (and one of the relevant years for the Saracens fine and points deduction) the top spending club (Harlequins - £14.2M) finished 10th out of 12 - so much for their ability to buy more and better players. Exeter, who topped the table spent £12.1M and were mid table in terms of salary spend.
 

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?

But we aren't talking about the extremes you might see in football. The extra spend on salary that broke the rule for Saracens is about 5% of their total salary bill, not 50%. And actually that additional rule breaking spend hardly shifted them in the salary spending rankings - without it they ranked 4th, with it they leapfrogged Leicester into 3rd. Still ahead of them were Wasps (who finished one place below them) and Harlequins (who finished none places below them).

But actually you can do that thought experiment as the top spending team, Harlequins £14.2M, spent almost exactly double on salary compared to the bottom spending team (Sale - £7.3M). Problem for your argument is that Harlequins finished 10th, while Sale, spending only half their amount, finished 8th.

Come back to me when you actually have some evidence to back up your assertion.

[jeremyp]

Saracens will not be playing Premiership rugby next year

https://www.bbc.com/sport/rugby-union/51149035

When offered the choice of opening their books up or relegation, they chose relegation. One can only assume that their books have things in that would lead to at least as bad a punishment.

[jeremyp]

One thing that is certain is that neither you nor NS have provided any evidence to support your assertion that breaching the salary cap enhances performance, indeed you haven't even provided any evidence that greater spend on salaries in the rugby premiership is associated with better performance.

Jesus Christ.

It should be bloody obvious to you that spending more on the squad means better players and more of them. It's true in rugby: Saracens have been cheating and also winning. It's true in football: look at what happened to Chelsea, Man City and now Liverpool. It's true in every sport. The team that spends most money is strongly correlated with winning. Spending a lot of money and not doing well does happen, but then taking drugs and not doing well also happens.

Get a grip.

[ProfessorDavey]

The team that spends most money is strongly correlated with winning.

Except it isn't - see the evidence above.

[ProfessorDavey]

It's true in football: look at what happened to Chelsea, Man City and now Liverpool. It's true in every sport.

Also really poor correlation in football between net spend on transfers and success.

Looking at transfers since 2015 Liverpool, our run away premier league leader, rank 14th in the premier league, behind those perennial trophy winners in that period such as ... err ... Arsenal (3rd), Everton (4th), Brighton (5th), Wolves (6th), Bournemouth (7th), West Ham (8th), Aston Villa (9th), Newcastle (12th), Watford (13th).

https://www.givemesport.com/1495995-the-premier-league-table-based-on-net-spend-since-the-summer-of-2015

Things are rather more complicated than you might think.

[jeremyp]

Also really poor correlation in football between net spend on transfers and success.

Looking at transfers since 2015 Liverpool, our run away premier league leader, rank 14th in the premier league, behind those perennial trophy winners in that period such as ... err ... Arsenal (3rd), Everton (4th), Brighton (5th), Wolves (6th), Bournemouth (7th), West Ham (8th), Aston Villa (9th), Newcastle (12th), Watford (13th).

https://www.givemesport.com/1495995-the-premier-league-table-based-on-net-spend-since-the-summer-of-2015

Things are rather more complicated than you might think.

Bullshit. Of course money talks. Cherry picking exceptions does not invalidate the correlation.

[ProfessorDavey]

Bullshit.

Nope - facts. You don't seem keen on evidence do you - didn't like on the rugby, don't like it on the football.

Of course money talks. Cherry picking exceptions does not invalidate the correlation.

Except there is no correlation.

So lets expand beyond just net transfer spend. Lets add in salary spend on players too - so effective everything bankrolled on the team. Well over the past 5 years Man U have spent virtually double the amount that Liverpool have spent (salary and net transfer spend) - surely in your world of 'money talks' they'd be doing way better than Liverpool yet last time I looked they had 34 points to Liverpool's 64.

And Arsenal have spent about 25% more than Liverpool for their 29 points compared to 64.

And the highest spending club in Liverpool over the past five years (player salary and net transfer spend) is ... err ... Everton.

I'd accept that in football you have to spend to be 'in the zone' so to speak - in other words be in contention - but once you are that level of spend of the biggest 10 clubs or so spending more is no guarantee of success, even spending double the amount of your rivals, as Man U can attest compared to Liverpool.

[jeremyp]

Nope - facts. You don't seem keen on evidence do you - didn't like on the rugby, don't like it on the football.
Except there is no correlation.

Bullshit.

Bullshit bullshit bullshit.

Have you noticed that, as a rule in any sports league, the ones that spend the most money tend to do best? It's not a 100% correlation but it does exist.

You are just cherry picking the exceptions.

Well over the past 5 years Man U have spent virtually double the amount that Liverpool have spent (salary and net transfer spend) - surely in your world of 'money talks' they'd be doing way better than Liverpool yet last time I looked they had 34 points to Liverpool's 64.

And Arsenal have spent about 25% more than Liverpool for their 29 points compared to 64.

Cherry picking. What about Man City and Chelsea? Both clubs have loads of money and both clubs have had far more success than Liverpool over the last 10 years.

Look at any sport. As a rule, being rich makes you more successful.