DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 36828--------------------------------------------------
Re: Salary Cap Report released
DIR By: never sleep
Date: January 23, 2020, 9:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: PBE123 link ---
>
> As Wray has passed his shareholding to a Trust, resigned from
the Board etc, will he still be deemed to be a Connected Party?
>
--- End Quote ---
I think that the trust is still connected to the Wray family -
so probably still connected.
#Post#: 36829--------------------------------------------------
Re: Salary Cap Report released
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: January 23, 2020, 9:22 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I don't think adverts featuring Maro or whoever are necessarily
considered salary unless he's advertising on behalf of a
Connected Party or explicitly representing Saracens when doing
so.
#Post#: 36830--------------------------------------------------
Re: Salary Cap Report released
DIR By: Fish Quin
Date: January 23, 2020, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The payments for image rights were deemed to be 800k above
market value. The total payment was much higher (1.6m?). It
seems they’ve accepted that Wray can pay the players for these
image rights outside of the cap, as they have only been punished
for the ‘extra’ amount. I’m shocked this is allowed and would
have thought the entire amount should be counted as salary. If
this is the correct interpretation of the law, the law needs to
be changed moving forward. Hiding 800k in ‘salary’ is
significant, but 1.6m would really change the look of any squad.
The same applies for the payments for ‘MBN Promotions’. In this
report 100k of such payments are subject to penalty, but Wray
openly admits that many other players from Saracens receive
similar payments. As MBN Promotions is so closely connected to
Saracens I’m surprised any such payments are allowed outside the
cap. Again, if this is allowed in the current rules, then the
rules need to be changed. It’s an easy way to siphon money
across the squad and could save them millions on their ‘salary’.
Both of these cases give us some insight into how Sarries are
getting around the salary cap, some of these methods are
certainly against the rules and have finally been punished but
it seems there is more to it and the rules need to be tightened
if we ever hope to have a truly effective salary cap. Again, I
feel like this is just the start.
#Post#: 36831--------------------------------------------------
Re: Salary Cap Report released
DIR By: nowexnavyquin
Date: January 23, 2020, 10:08 am
---------------------------------------------------------
From reading the Sarries board it appears they are in full head
in the sand mode along with but but everyone is it's not fair
sir mode, below is just one comment
"Unreal, if this is the extent of the cheating it’s an
embarrassment. Some people need to take a long hard look in the
mirror"
Oh and this one but wasn't sure if this was a drunken rambling
or just being ironic
"Well the sky report from the PRL judgement makes me feel happy
again.
The Daily Telegraph report makes me feel happy again.
[www.telegraph.co.uk]
The Rugby union weekly- Saracens special made me feel happy
again. [www.bbc.co.uk]
Thank you for releasing this.
I am now pleased that we are in the Champions league, we don't
have the stench of those hypocritical club owners from the
premiership.
I would prefer to be in the Pro-15 (used to be called 14!)"
#Post#: 36832--------------------------------------------------
Re: Salary Cap Report released
DIR By: JammyGit
Date: January 23, 2020, 10:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's a cult.
#Post#: 36833--------------------------------------------------
Re: Salary Cap Report released
DIR By: RocQuin
Date: January 23, 2020, 10:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JammyGit link ---
>
> I don't think adverts featuring Maro or whoever are
necessarily considered salary unless he's advertising on behalf
of a Connected Party or explicitly representing Saracens when
doing so.
>
--- End Quote ---
Well, the advertisements that I have seen show Maro dressed in
Sarries kit, complete with scrum cap. That sounds like
representing Saracens in my opinion.
#Post#: 36834--------------------------------------------------
Re: Salary Cap Report released
DIR By: never sleep
Date: January 23, 2020, 10:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I think he appears usually in a black Adidas rugby shirt,
similar to a black Nike Sarries shirt.
But, payments are from a Wray company - so should be included???
I think that if a random company in, say Newcastle (i.e. in no
way connected to Wray/Sarries/etc), paid Maro to endorse their
product, then this is excluded.
However, the connection between Wray and Simba should cause this
transaction to be included.
#Post#: 36835--------------------------------------------------
Re: Salary Cap Report released
DIR By: never sleep
Date: January 23, 2020, 10:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JammyGit link ---
>
> I don't think adverts featuring Maro or whoever are
necessarily considered salary unless he's advertising on behalf
of a Connected Party or explicitly representing Saracens when
doing so.
>
--- End Quote ---
Wray is a director/major shareholder of Simba beds - therefore a
Connected Party IMO
#Post#: 36836--------------------------------------------------
Re: Salary Cap Report released
DIR By: RocQuin
Date: January 23, 2020, 10:57 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: never sleep link ---
>
> I think he appears usually in a black Adidas rugby shirt,
similar to a black Nike Sarries shirt.
> But, payments are from a Wray company - so should be
included???
>
--- End Quote ---
Ok, if that’s the case, then I apologise, however, he is such an
instantly recognisable figure that appearing in a shirt
‘similar’ to a Sarries shirt would lead the watcher to associate
that image with Saracens.
#Post#: 36838--------------------------------------------------
Re: Salary Cap Report released
DIR By: BedfordshireBoy
Date: January 23, 2020, 11:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I am afraid you have got it all wrong.
"Club Statement from Nigel Wray
I am really sorry for the heartache that I have caused you due
to my ill-considered approach to matters relating to salary cap
compliance. My intention with co-investments was always to
support players beyond their playing careers.
I recognise that the actions of the Club were described by the
panel as ‘reckless’ primarily due to my failure to consult with
PRL’s salary cap manager prior to entering into any agreements
and then disclosing the transactions to him. I take full
responsibility for this. We should have been far better.
Equally important is the Panel’s determination that neither the
Club nor myself deliberately attempted to breach the cap.
As the matter is complex (the 103 page panel’s report of
determination is available on PRL’s website), I thought I would
take this opportunity to explain these one-off transactions that
the Panel considered to be undeclared salary.
Property co-investments entered into between myself and certain
players.
A payment by an ex-player to myselfand another Saracens
director.
The purchase of a 30% share in a player’s image rights company
by two other Saracens directors and myself.
Agent fees across the three years.
Appearances at MBN Events.
It is not my intention to rerun our defence but simply to
summarise the main points of the Disciplinary Panel’s findings.
2016/2017 the cap was breached by £1,134,968.60 due to property
joint ventures entered into between myself and certain players
In 2017, I entered into property joint ventures with four
players. All these transactions are long-term investments that
run far beyond the length of a player’s contract and to date no
personal financial value has been transferred.
The structure is as follows:
The relevant players and I became shareholders of a joint
venture company.
The company purchased one or more buy-to-let properties.
The parties contributed to the purchase price of a property
pro-rata to their shareholding in the company. My contribution
was by way of capital investment to the company and the player’s
contribution was by way of personally guaranteeing a mortgage
taken by the company equivalent to the remainder of the purchase
price.
In some cases, I invested further funds in order to renovate the
property. (These loans were provided at standard commercial
rates of interest).
The mortgage and all other ongoing costs are paid from the
rental income.
When a property is sold in the future, the proceeds are to be
distributed in the following priority: (i) first to redeem the
mortgage; (ii) second to repay my loans to the company and any
interest; and (iii) the remainder to be distributed to the
shareholders in accordance with their respective shareholdings.
The Disciplinary Panel concluded that under the regulations my
investments into the joint venture companies amounted to ‘loans’
by a connected party of Saracens (i.e. me) to a connected party
of the relevant players (i.e. the joint venture companies) and
as they were not repaid within a salary cap year, the full
amounts are considered salary within that time period.
I should have declared these transactions to the salary cap
manager prior to signing off the agreements. I mistakenly
assumed that as I had entered into personal property agreements
with players previously that had been signed off by the Salary
Cap Manager, a precedent had already been set. Equally with many
years’ experience in the property sector, I considered these
investments to be equity investments as they bear equity style
risks. However, because I made my investments into the joint
venture companies through directors’ loans (pursuant to
accountancy advice) the entire amount has been deemed salary in
the salary cap year in which they were made.
2017/2018 the salary cap was breached by £98,249.80 for payment
from an ex player to myselfand another Saracens Director.
When playing for the Club, the player in question jointly
purchased a residential property with myself and another
Saracens director. The player lived in the house with his wife.
He owned 80% of the property, with myself and the other director
owning a 10% share each. Each party contributed equity for the
purchase equal to their shares in the property (PRL had
previously confirmed that equity investments of this nature are
outside of salary for the purposes of the Regulations).
Having joined another club, the former player wished to purchase
the directors’ stakes in the property through equal monthly
instalments over an 18-month period. After initially complying
with the payment plan, he was unable to meet the instalments due
to personal circumstances. We wanted to help him and his family
so agreed to a short delay in the repayments. Eight months later
the former player moved to a new club where the owner of that
club paid off the full outstanding amount to us directly.
The Disciplinary Panel concluded that the eight-month grace
period (which straddled two seasons) amounted to a loan from
connected parties of Saracens to the former player and,
therefore, was a benefit in kind to a former player in
accordance with the Schedule 1, paragraph 1(s) of the
Regulations.
Consequently, the full amount of the purchase price paid by the
ex-player to both Saracens directors was deemed to be undeclared
salary for the 2017-18 season. The Disciplinary Panel noted that
this “may seem unrealistic and even unfair”, but accepted that
under the regulations the salary cap manager is charged with the
task of determining salary within a particular salary cap year
without reference to future events (i.e. the fact that we were
paid in full by the ex-player eight months later).
The salary cap was breached by £906,505.57 due tothe purchase of
a 30% share in a player’s image rights company by myself and two
other Saracens’ directors.
The purpose of this transaction was to leverage the collective
experience of the investors to help grow the player’s off-field
commercial activities and generate income.
An indicative valuation was produced by leading firm PwC which
the investors used to negotiate the purchase price. The
valuation was also based on a 12-year term regardless of whether
the player stayed at Saracens or not.
Based on an alternative valuation, PRL argued that the true
market value of the shareholding was less than that paid by the
investors.
The Disciplinary Panel stated that it accepted “without
reservation” the investors’ evidence regarding how they arrived
at the agreed purchase price. However, the Disciplinary Panel
found that it was not required to conclude whether the price
paid by the investors was correct, but whether the valuation
relied upon by the Salary Cap Manager was reasonable.
The Disciplinary Panel concluded that the valuation relied upon
by the Salary Cap Manager was reasonable and that, therefore,
the difference between that valuation and the purchase price
paid amounted to undeclared salary for the 2018-19 season.
For the avoidance of doubt, the Disciplinary Panel stated that
it did not find that the market value of the shareholding was,
in fact, the value asserted by PRL. The Disciplinary Panel
accepted that the investment was legitimate; they simply
asserted that the salary cap manager acted reasonably when
relying on his own accountant’s valuation (which was lower).
The Panel also found that payments made to various third parties
for scouting services over the three- year period constituted
salary. This was because those third parties also operated as
player agents and under the regulations any such payment is
treated as salary.
MBN Events, a company owned by my daughter Lucy, arranges
corporate hospitality events featuring high profile guest
speakers from across the sporting spectrum. MBN entered into a
commercial agreement with one Saracens player whereby it paid
him a yearly lump sum of £30,000 to make a number of appearances
at its events over the three-year period. The Club’s position
was that this was a genuine commercial arrangement between MBN
and the player, not disguised salary. The player appeared at
several MBN events during this period. However, the Disciplinary
Panel found that because Lucy is a connected party, the
appearance payments made to the player were undisclosed salary
totalling £95,000.
I appreciate there is a lot to digest but felt you were owed a
full explanation. Again, I am sorry that this has caused so much
upset to you and our sport.
As you know, the Club has already started to implement new
processes to ensure nothing like this happens again.
Despite recent events Saracens is a family which has always
brought me and my family so much joy. The team’s incredible form
and the Club’s togetherness in recent weeks shows me the culture
we have built is strong. Our vision, represented by a united
group of players, coaches, staff, families and fans who care
deeply for one another, endures.
Thank you all for continuing to unite behind the Club.
Best Wishes
Nigel"
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 6
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page