Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

HEC R4) Saracens v Munster @ Allianz Park, BT/beIN, Saturday, 3PM

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Finnegan79
    replied
    have to wonder how many envelopes stuffed full of 50 pound notes mysteriously found their way into guys' lockers at the training facility. That sort of thing will never be discovered or properly accounted for.

    Leave a comment:


  • jagawayagain
    replied
    Originally posted by Munsterboy View Post

    They were certainly paying these guys in various ways, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few more that weren't picked up.

    Itoje, for example, was paid appearance money from a supposedly separate hospitality company operating at their ground, but never had to actually show up.
    Wray’s daughter’s hospitality, c£100k

    Leave a comment:


  • jagawayagain
    replied
    Have posted link to full report on other thread (premiership).

    Leave a comment:


  • Munsterboy
    replied
    Originally posted by rathbaner View Post
    According to Sky, which says it has seen the report,

    In three seasons, between 2016 and 2019, Saracens were found to have overspent by more than £2m in total.
    Significantly, in both of the two seasons in which they overspent by nearly £1m, Saracens won the European Champions Cup.

    A top international rugby player's salary is in the region of £500,000 per year. So to put it crudely, you could say they had two internationals more than they should have.
    • 2016/17 - overspend over £1.1m
    • 2017/18 - overspend over £98,000
    • 2018/19 - overspend £906,000
    Maro Itoje

    The England and Lions lock features a few times in the report. Wray made a £250,000 investment in Itoje's company.

    The disciplinary panel also found Saracens overpaid Itoje by £800,000 for a stake in his image rights company.

    Story here

    The report is not as damning as the rumours have been. But from what I can make out the report appears to deal only with players, and past players, like Ashton. But you can't help but wonder if there were favours done for the families of players or what kind of free stuff or sweeteners might have been available for the asking. The fact that they were afraid of an audit makes you wonder too, given the fact that until very recently they thought they could just ride out any sanction the PRL imposed on them, now suddenly they're embracing relegation, a two-year European ban and the break up of their squad. Venter was on the Rugby Pod with Goode and Hamilton (it's on youtube) saying that big money was always there even when they were losing(!) and denying that there was anything corrupt going on. He sounded a bit like Bertie Ahern he was in such denial (from the days of digouts, shoeboxes of cash in the wardrobe and finance minster with no bank account days).
    They were certainly paying these guys in various ways, so it wouldn't surprise me if there were a few more that weren't picked up.

    Itoje, for example, was paid appearance money from a supposedly separate hospitality company operating at their ground, but never had to actually show up.

    Leave a comment:


  • rathbaner
    replied
    According to Sky, which says it has seen the report,

    In three seasons, between 2016 and 2019, Saracens were found to have overspent by more than £2m in total.
    Significantly, in both of the two seasons in which they overspent by nearly £1m, Saracens won the European Champions Cup.

    A top international rugby player's salary is in the region of £500,000 per year. So to put it crudely, you could say they had two internationals more than they should have.
    • 2016/17 - overspend over £1.1m
    • 2017/18 - overspend over £98,000
    • 2018/19 - overspend £906,000
    Maro Itoje

    The England and Lions lock features a few times in the report. Wray made a £250,000 investment in Itoje's company.

    The disciplinary panel also found Saracens overpaid Itoje by £800,000 for a stake in his image rights company.

    Story here

    The report is not as damning as the rumours have been. But from what I can make out the report appears to deal only with players, and past players, like Ashton. But you can't help but wonder if there were favours done for the families of players or what kind of free stuff or sweeteners might have been available for the asking. The fact that they were afraid of an audit makes you wonder too, given the fact that until very recently they thought they could just ride out any sanction the PRL imposed on them, now suddenly they're embracing relegation, a two-year European ban and the break up of their squad. Venter was on the Rugby Pod with Goode and Hamilton (it's on youtube) saying that big money was always there even when they were losing(!) and denying that there was anything corrupt going on. He sounded a bit like Bertie Ahern he was in such denial (from the days of digouts, shoeboxes of cash in the wardrobe and finance minster with no bank account days).
    Last edited by rathbaner; 23-January-2020, 11:49.

    Leave a comment:


  • highfield
    replied
    I believe the Leinster budget is more than just salaries and is the operational budget for the whole year. Saracens (7m + 2 marquee) is just salaries for senior team (minus RFU money) but open for correction.

    This audit clearly isn't the full picture. For one is doesn't include Daly and Singleton but I have heard Flannery more than once reference money to wives.

    As I understand it, you have to show two full years of financial compliance before you can come back to the premiership and you can be sure as hell they will be audited again next year on insistence of clubs.
    Last edited by highfield; 23-January-2020, 11:35.

    Leave a comment:


  • Munsterboy
    replied
    I estimate Sarries spend >£10m.

    The get £7m as basic salaries, plus two marquee players (Farrell is officially on £750k and I'd assume their other one, whoever it is, is on similar). That brings them up to £8.5m.

    Then they get up to £600k in academy credits (that's for players who came through their system and are now on >£30k), which I reckon they're maxing out cos they have quite a few home-grown lads in their squad.

    That gets them to £9.1m before any breach.

    If they're in breach by £1.5-£2m above that, they're heading for £11m.

    Leave a comment:


  • The Last Stand
    replied
    Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post



    Thornley is saying 10m for Leinster. We were having costs of c.7m bandied around 3 years or so ago. So Sarries inflated budget lands somewhere between Munster and Leinster, and about on a par with the French salary cap.

    Again, I can see why English clubs are hacked off. But I think the wringing of hands from Irish fans is a bit off. Ospreys have a player budget of about 5m. Dragons 3.4.

    I don't think we're being particularly hard done by here.
    Thornley includes the central contract money in his figures which is also in respect pay and duties for Ireland duties. So not comparing like with like.

    However - if this was correct then perhaps the Irish players and their agents have done a very good job of highlighting the mega bucks on offer in France and England. The reality may well be different if the Leinster payroll is the same as Saracens which is close to the French cap of EUR 11m.

    Leave a comment:


  • ustix
    replied
    Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post


    The co-investments were with Farrell, Itoje and the two Vunipolas and Wigglesworth.

    Farrell was reported to be on 750,000, Billy and Mako on 450,000 each. Wigglesworth on 375k. Itoje is on about 500k.


    All the controversy was around whether the Chairman being in business with them, these "conivestments" in property etc, counted towards the salary cap. And they were hammered when it was decided they did. Even though Farrell is a marquee player.


    I'm a bit baffled by the whole thing, and there's very little transparency. The info above I've only seen speculated on in the papers.
    The declared co-investments?

    Leave a comment:


  • deltared
    replied
    Originally posted by Jenta View Post

    If it was that simple then they'd probably have done it, or at least made some sort of attempt. My feeling is there's more to this than a simple salary cap breach, which is why so little information is in the public sphere yet.
    The excess is reportedly in the region of £1.2m for this year alone. They took a second points deduction instead of a forensic examination of their books, they were given the choice. What does that tell you? Nothing simple at all. Just wait until HMRC get stuck in with the players, they rigorously police joint investment type vehicles between employer & employee with great gusto and in detail. There is a lot of pain coming the players way, it's their liability. The club could also face prosecution for tax evasion.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jenta
    replied
    Originally posted by busby View Post

    I'd imagine their named marquee played wouldn't have needed off the book elements if they're outside the cap anyway though?

    I don't think they would have had to do a dramatic squad restructure to get this right. They simply have too many top earners, and accounting for the top 2 being outside the cap you're talking about a max of probably 4 making up the 2 million. Say they retain Farell and Billy as marquees. They're losing Williams anyway. You're talking 3 of Kruis, Itoje, George, Mako, Koch or Daly and they're nearly there. You're still talking about an excellent squad and even first team without those players,

    Probably not that straightforward in fairness, but it's a few big earners making up the 2 mill and not an above market rate across the board, and it never required the radical overall they've now going to be stuck with it.
    If it was that simple then they'd probably have done it, or at least made some sort of attempt. My feeling is there's more to this than a simple salary cap breach, which is why so little information is in the public sphere yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • Munsterboy
    replied
    Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post


    The co-investments were with Farrell, Itoje and the two Vunipolas and Wigglesworth.

    Farrell was reported to be on 750,000, Billy and Mako on 450,000 each. Wigglesworth on 375k. Itoje is on about 500k.


    All the controversy was around whether the Chairman being in business with them, these "conivestments" in property etc, counted towards the salary cap. And they were hammered when it was decided they did. Even though Farrell is a marquee player.


    I'm a bit baffled by the whole thing, and there's very little transparency. The info above I've only seen speculated on in the papers.
    Farrell is one of their two declared marquee players this season, but may not have been when they broke the cap a few years back.

    Leave a comment:


  • Munsterboy
    replied
    Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post



    The only figure I've seen is a 2m overspend. The off the books elements all seem tied to what would be their marquee players, so I've assumed that's all bundled into the 2m.
    They get to have two marquee players at whatever they cost, plus £7m, plus academy credits.

    Breaching the cap by £2m means spreading £2m more than all of that.

    Leave a comment:


  • Balla Boy
    replied
    Originally posted by busby View Post

    I'd imagine their named marquee played wouldn't have needed off the book elements if they're outside the cap anyway though?

    I don't think they would have had to do a dramatic squad restructure to get this right. They simply have too many top earners, and accounting for the top 2 being outside the cap you're talking about a max of probably 4 making up the 2 million. Say they retain Farell and Billy as marquees. They're losing Williams anyway. You're talking 3 of Kruis, Itoje, George, Mako, Koch or Daly and they're nearly there. You're still talking about an excellent squad and even first team without those players,

    Probably not that straightforward in fairness, but it's a few big earners making up the 2 mill and not an above market rate across the board, and it never required the radical overall they've now going to be stuck with it.

    The co-investments were with Farrell, Itoje and the two Vunipolas and Wigglesworth.

    Farrell was reported to be on 750,000, Billy and Mako on 450,000 each. Wigglesworth on 375k. Itoje is on about 500k.


    All the controversy was around whether the Chairman being in business with them, these "conivestments" in property etc, counted towards the salary cap. And they were hammered when it was decided they did. Even though Farrell is a marquee player.


    I'm a bit baffled by the whole thing, and there's very little transparency. The info above I've only seen speculated on in the papers.

    Leave a comment:


  • busby
    replied
    Originally posted by Balla Boy View Post



    The only figure I've seen is a 2m overspend. The off the books elements all seem tied to what would be their marquee players, so I've assumed that's all bundled into the 2m.
    I'd imagine their named marquee played wouldn't have needed off the book elements if they're outside the cap anyway though?

    I don't think they would have had to do a dramatic squad restructure to get this right. They simply have too many top earners, and accounting for the top 2 being outside the cap you're talking about a max of probably 4 making up the 2 million. Say they retain Farell and Billy as marquees. They're losing Williams anyway. You're talking 3 of Kruis, Itoje, George, Mako, Koch or Daly and they're nearly there. You're still talking about an excellent squad and even first team without those players,

    Probably not that straightforward in fairness, but it's a few big earners making up the 2 mill and not an above market rate across the board, and it never required the radical overall they've now going to be stuck with it.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X