Yes - if we're going to apply "innocent until proven guilty" can we have "the guilty will be punished"? I'm not sure how many people have actually said Saracens are breaking the salary cap (this time). Are we saying that unless people are already proved guilty we cannot question their innocence?
As I pointed out, if there were people you'd think Saracens might have difficulty fitting under the salary cap, then Farrell, the Vunipolas and Itoje might come up somewhere in your top five. Not sure about Wrigglesworth, is he in the same league or was he a late signing where perhaps the cap had already been reached?
Anyway, the Mail has spent four months looking at this, and simply claims there may be something for PRL to look at. As I said earlier, if the company assets are owned by the directors and the amount put into those assets reflect their shareholding, then I don't see any salary cap problem with them. If the players stick their earnings in a savings account, the interest earned doesn't count towards the salary cap. If someone else puts money into a savings vehicle for them, then of course it should.