DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
ComeAllWithin (Harlequins Rugby)
HTML https://comeallwithin.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: ComeAllWithin Board
*****************************************************
#Post#: 86567--------------------------------------------------
Re: Another Cap break
DIR By: DOK
Date: March 16, 2022, 8:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Saracens were at least able to claim that they believed their
innovative schemes were legal under the salary cap. But
Leicester looks like someone took a close look at the salary cap
regulations and deliberately broke them, but only to a minor
degree. I'm not sure that isn't worse.
#Post#: 86569--------------------------------------------------
Re: Another Cap break
DIR By: Quintron
Date: March 16, 2022, 9:01 am
---------------------------------------------------------
'Same old Tigers, always cheating!'
#Post#: 86573--------------------------------------------------
Re: Another Cap break
DIR By: MadMax
Date: March 16, 2022, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DOK link ---
>
> Saracens were at least able to claim that they believed their
innovative schemes were legal under the salary cap. But
Leicester looks like someone took a close look at the salary cap
regulations and deliberately broke them, but only to a minor
degree. I'm not sure that isn't worse.
>
--- End Quote ---
Yes but the Big Cheats were told their cheating (sorry
innovative schemes) was illegal once and then continued with
more cheating (sorry innovative schemes) and then when told
these were illegal they refused to open their books and kept all
those who orchestrated the cheating (sorry innovative schemes)
in position so I personally reckon it was worse than that
carried out by the Little Cheats but neither club did themselves
any favours.
#Post#: 86574--------------------------------------------------
Re: Another Cap break
DIR By: never sleep
Date: March 16, 2022, 10:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MadMax link ---
>
> Yes but the Big Cheats were told their cheating (sorry
innovative schemes)
>
--- End Quote ---
Shouldn't we refer to them as "The Big Innovative Schemers"
#Post#: 86577--------------------------------------------------
Re: Another Cap break
DIR By: Quinten Poulsen
Date: March 16, 2022, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Innovative schemes still need (and needed) to be reported under
the regulations.
#Post#: 86582--------------------------------------------------
Re: Another Cap break
DIR By: Quinky
Date: March 16, 2022, 11:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: MadMax link ---
>
> Yes but the Big Cheats were told their cheating (sorry
innovative schemes) was illegal once and then continued with
more cheating (sorry innovative schemes) and then when told
these were illegal they refused to open their books and kept all
those who orchestrated the cheating (sorry innovative schemes)
in position so I personally reckon it was worse than that
carried out by the Little Cheats but neither club did themselves
any favours.
>
--- End Quote ---
Apart from their (very reliable) word, is there any proof that
they were advised their schemes were legal? Or was it a case of
"nothing to see here, move along, my friend said it's OK so I
don't need to show you"?
#Post#: 86583--------------------------------------------------
Re: Another Cap break
DIR By: championes
Date: March 16, 2022, 12:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: JammyGit link ---
>
> You've explained for yourself exactly why there was no points
deduction. Because they kept it below the level where it becomes
more than a fine. You can't point the finger at them for doing
that (presumably deliberately) and then claim it's a conspiracy
that they uh, didn't get a bigger punishment they would have had
if they'd cheated more...
>
> Tigers deserve a lot of criticism for this. Without Saracens
having done their thing, I think there'd be a lot of outrage
about this. But Saracens smashed the salary cap for years - and
the first time round threatened to drag everyone into legal
action, forced a higher salary cap and the sweeping under the
carpet of the years of cheating, only to then cheat to a massive
extent _again_ and accepting relegation rather than coming clean
and opening their books for investigation.
>
> There's really no comparison to be made here.
>
--- End Quote ---
It’s a scale isn’t it? They’ve broken the rules just enough to
make sure it couldn’t beach the threshold - right in the middle
of the Sarries scandal.
So it’s not about how appalling the unforgivable cheats of
Sarries are - but about where the scale begins.
Tigers didn’t do this by accident or just once, or during a
period where they could claim ignorance of the rules - since the
spotlight was firmly on this kind of rule breaking.
Either way as there’s no deductions - PRL gets to move on once
again pretending all is well.
I’m not saying Tigers should be relegated - the point here is
about governance.
As with promotion/relegation there seems to be an expectation
the world will just move on.
It doesn’t stink - but it smells.
#Post#: 86587--------------------------------------------------
Re: Another Cap break
DIR By: poorfour
Date: March 16, 2022, 12:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: championes link ---
>
> It’s a scale isn’t it? They’ve broken the rules just enough to
make sure it couldn’t beach the threshold - right in the middle
of the Sarries scandal.
>
> So it’s not about how appalling the unforgivable cheats of
Sarries are - but about where the scale begins.
>
> Tigers didn’t do this by accident or just once, or during a
period where they could claim ignorance of the rules - since the
spotlight was firmly on this kind of rule breaking.
>
> Either way as there’s no deductions - PRL gets to move on once
again pretending all is well.
>
> I’m not saying Tigers should be relegated - the point here is
about governance.
>
> As with promotion/relegation there seems to be an expectation
the world will just move on.
>
> It doesn’t stink - but it smells.
>
--- End Quote ---
I doubt PRL are any happier about this than we fans are... but
Tigers were very smart about it. The rules said that within a
given limit the sanction would be a fine rather than points, and
they stayed within that limit. The PRL - which remember is
basically just the club owners - agreed the framework so don't
have a leg to stand on pushing for anything more.
But I'd not be surprised if the framework gets tightened up a
bit in the wake of this. A reasonable bet would be that repeated
breaches and non-disclosure over an extended period will attract
points deduction unless there are clear extenuating
circumstances.
#Post#: 86588--------------------------------------------------
Re: Another Cap break
DIR By: Quinten Poulsen
Date: March 16, 2022, 12:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: championes link ---
>
> It’s a scale isn’t it? They’ve broken the rules just enough to
make sure it couldn’t beach the threshold
>
--- End Quote ---
I've seen this said elsewhere but with no reference to the data
- is it really true?
#Post#: 86592--------------------------------------------------
Re: Another Cap break
DIR By: poorfour
Date: March 16, 2022, 1:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Quinten Poulsen link ---
>
> I've seen this said elsewhere but with no reference to the
data - is it really true?
>
--- End Quote ---
Basically. The framework has a sliding scale that says "if
you're over it up to x you pay a 'tax' of 50p per £1 over, if
it's between x and y the 'tax' is £1 per £1, above y the
sanctions get more serious". Tigers are clearly within y (though
have been over both the cap and x in multiple years). All very
circumstantial, but it looks like a deliberate ruse to be
naughty but not so naughty it incurs more than a financial
penalty
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page