News:

  3. Another Cap break
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Down

Author Topic: Another Cap break  (Read 2349 times)

0 Members and 152 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Another Cap break
« Reply #30 on: »
Quote from: Quinten Poulsen on Wednesday 16-Mar-2022, 17:46*
Quote from: championes
It’s a scale isn’t it? They’ve broken the rules just enough to make sure it couldn’t beach the threshold

I've seen this said elsewhere but with no reference to the data - is it really true?

Not sure if this is what you're referring to but they kept well below the threshold. They were far nearer the cap than the threshold.
Logged
Re: Another Cap break
« Reply #31 on: »
Quote from: Brown Bottle on Wednesday 16-Mar-2022, 18:34*
I've seen this said elsewhere but with no reference to the data - is it really true?


Not sure if this is what you're referring to but they kept well below the threshold. They were far nearer the cap than the threshold.

Thanks BB, that's indeed what I was wondering.
Logged
Re: Another Cap break
« Reply #32 on: »
Quote from: championes on Wednesday 16-Mar-2022, 17:13*
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.

I don't think hitting them with big fines and it being in the papers is PRL pretending all is well.

If you have set out rules regarding salary cap, and you punish teams accordingly, what's the problem?
Logged
Re: Another Cap break
« Reply #33 on: »
What is not fully appreciated is Tigers broke the cap by small amounts that is agreed, but those amounts are significant enough to make it believable that players may have stayed or signed for tigers because they could earn an extra £500 - £1000 a week, its not trivial and all salary cap breaches should carry a points deduction on a sliding scale.
Logged
Agree Agree x 2 View List
Re: Another Cap break
« Reply #34 on: »
Quote from: East Sussex Chris on Thursday 17-Mar-2022, 08:51*
What is not fully appreciated is Tigers broke the cap by small amounts that is agreed, but those amounts are significant enough to make it believable that players may have stayed or signed for tigers because they could earn an extra £500 - £1000 a week, its not trivial and all salary cap breaches should carry a points deduction on a sliding scale.

I think everyone's aware it has a meaningful impact. I agree that points deductions should come in sooner in the punishment scale. I guess there's no point complaining about the process working as written and agreed, though - especially when people start being conspiratorial about Saracens, of all teams!
Logged
Re: Another Cap break
« Reply #35 on: »
It's an odd one. It sounds like there is a permitted overrun each year which you pay a tax on if you use and it's only a breach if you go over the permitted amount. So this doesn't appear to in fact be a breach. Tiger's did however get a 17k fine for non disclosure.
Logged
Re: Another Cap break
« Reply #36 on: »
Quote from: East Sussex Chris on Thursday 17-Mar-2022, 08:51*
What is not fully appreciated is Tigers broke the cap by small amounts that is agreed, but those amounts are significant enough to make it believable that players may have stayed or signed for tigers because they could earn an extra £500 - £1000 a week, its not trivial and all salary cap breaches should carry a points deduction on a sliding scale.

All breaches do incur a points deduction on a sliding scale. The scale starts at 0 (up to £200k it seems)
Logged
Re: Another Cap break
« Reply #37 on: »
I fear that's semantics at best - saying "there's no points deduction up to 200k" is not the same as "all breaches should carry a points deduction" :-)
Logged
Re: Another Cap break
« Reply #38 on: »
Quote from: Quinky on Wednesday 16-Mar-2022, 16:25*
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"?

I have no idea if anyone told them their schemes were legal but in 2015 they were told their schemes were illegal by PRL for the first time (as far as it is known).
Logged
Re: Another Cap break
« Reply #39 on: »
Quote from: JammyGit on Thursday 17-Mar-2022, 12:16*
I fear that's semantics at best - saying "there's no points deduction up to 200k" is not the same as "all breaches should carry a points deduction" :-)

So how many points should Quins have had deducted? For me 0 is the fair answer for what was seemingly an honest mistake flagged by the club and a small amount.

FYI, the scale is currently:

Level of breach (£)        Points deduction
0 - 99,999.99                       0
100,000 – 199,999.99          0
200,000 – 399,999.99          15
400,000 – 599,999.99          35
600,000 and over                 50

It would seem that we just debating at what level clubs receive 0 points deduction
Logged
Re: Another Cap break
« Reply #40 on: »
Quote from: Yareet on Thursday 17-Mar-2022, 12:58*
So how many points should Quins have had deducted? For me 0 is the fair answer for what was seemingly an honest mistake flagged by the club and a small amount.

FYI, the scale is currently:

Level of breach (£)        Points deduction
0 - 99,999.99                       0
100,000 – 199,999.99          0
200,000 – 399,999.99          15
400,000 – 599,999.99          35
600,000 and over                 50

It would seem that we just debating at what level clubs receive 0 points deduction

You're confusing me saying that "there's no points deduction except once you get over a threshold amount" as being the same as a sliding scale for _any_ breach. I don't have a problem with Quins and Wasps not getting points deductions, and I don't think every breach should come with a points deduction, because I'm well aware that even things like changes in currency value can lead to a breach.

But it's not really fair to say that points deduction on a sliding scale already exists for every breach, when points deduction does not happen quite a lot of the time. Points deduction is clearly only used in extreme cases.
Logged
Re: Another Cap break
« Reply #41 on: »
Part of me thinks that all breaches should have both a fine and a points deduction. Something like 1 point for each £10k.
This could mean that even small breaches would get a points deduction - but, the deduction would be very minor.
I also think that you should lose your overspend amount from a future years cap. So, going over in one year means that you have a reduced cap in a future year.

It is interesting that in the season we went over, we ended up in 10th place on equal points with Worcester on 11th. So, overspend does not = good results.

The following season, we ended in 5th place. We were on the same points as Saints (4th place) and Bath (6th place). So, we made it into the Heineken cup. But, had we had any points deduction at all (even 1 point), then we would have dropped to 7th place and Sale would have gone into the Heineken cup.

Logged
Re: Another Cap break
« Reply #42 on: »
Would be pretty upsetting to miss out on European qualification because exchange rates changed.
Logged
Re: Another Cap break
« Reply #43 on: »
Reg 10, just a fine not a points deduction

Redirect Notice
google.com
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]   Go Up
« previous next »
  3. Another Cap break