Championship for Leicester?

You should indeed and I agree Leicester should be punished if they are found to have transgressed but there's always someone trying to bend the rules or create ways of seemingly getting round them. The clever accountants (with their even cleverer lawyers) might argue that it is illegal to limit the amounts paid out in salaries - doesn't happen in any other business environment as far as I am aware so maybe any salary cap agreement isn't worth the paper it's written on

Edited by Thatbloke - 30 Dec 2021 at 13:41

Thatbloke wrote: Firstly I totally agree that there should be a salary cap AND that it should be totally transparent. What I do wonder is how many clubs are making "extra payments" through ghost companies set up by clever accountants. Can't believe its just been Sarries and now Leicester? What doesn't make any sense at all is that the salary cap is the same for every club across the board, it should be linked to a %age of gross income, however that may be accrued. In footballing terms would you really try to impose the same salary cap to Man Utd (a global brand) as you would to Norwich City (no offence!)??? Why should a club generating millions have the same salary cap as a club generating perhaps a tenth of those figures? Back to rugby - Leicester have always generated big crowds whilst the likes of Worcester and others get far fewer through the gates - so in my opinion it's farcical that they should have the same salary cap

A fair point, but those are not currently the rules - presumably the intention is to create as level a playing field as possible.

Another thought is who is to say what constitutes income? A sugar daddy giving a club £5m a game could be construed as income if that person was to purchase a number of season tickets for instance or pay over the odds for a box on the halfway line?

Interestingly, given my suspicions of Sale, Sanderson has come out against the Leicester investigations - getting worried about his own club perhaps?

I think Saracens being relegated was an anomoly and, initially anyway, not intended.  They were docked points in the first instance and would likely hgave climbed back up the tabel and had a decent finish, but the clincher for them was that they refused to open their books which resulted in more points being deducted.

Whistle watcher wrote: I think Saracens being relegated was an anomoly and, initially anyway, not intended.  They were docked points in the first instance and would likely hgave climbed back up the tabel and had a decent finish, but the clincher for them was that they refused to open their books which resulted in more points being deducted. Let's be honest, if they hadn't been relegated, it would likely have been Leicester that season!!

As I posted earlier

Brizzer wrote: castleparknight wrote: If they are found guilty should they not face the same penalty as Saracens. Would that then mean that two go up? I cannot see the PRL or RFU allowing this to happen and then Leicester having to stay in the Championship for a couple of years...... yeah right that is bound to happen, they will move heaven and earth to prevent that from happening. I should imagine that if found guilty Sarries will be screaming for Leicester to face the same sanction. The RFU/PL have set a precedent

WEvans wrote: Brizzer wrote: castleparknight wrote: If they are found guilty should they not face the same penalty as Saracens. Would that then mean that two go up? I cannot see the PRL or RFU allowing this to happen and then Leicester having to stay in the Championship for a couple of years...... yeah right that is bound to happen, they will move heaven and earth to prevent that from happening. I should imagine that if found guilty Sarries will be screaming for Leicester to face the same sanction. The RFU/PL have set a precedent Hardly. The first time the Cheats were found guilty nothing happened at all. It was swept under the carpet after the Cheats promised not to cheat again. The second time they were found guilty they were deducted points. It was only when they refused to hand over the books to prove they weren't cheating for a third time that they were automatically relegated. If that's a precedent then Leicester have two more bouts of cheating to take place before they are relegated - and that's only if they are found guilty this time!

However, the punishments have been beefed up following the Sarries debacle - now include points deductions, relegation, fines and stripping of titles.

You are missing a few points, firstly the salary cap and the Premiership has nothing to do with the RFU, they just pay for access to players for England, it is the (currently) 13 clubs who are share holders(for want of a better word) who decide what happens in the Premiership. The new guidelines were agreed along with the lowered salary cap and only go back 5 years so anything before that is out of bounds, it does not mean that anyone has necessarily broken any rules as such(though rumours were abound that Bath may have been over the cap some years back),it was an agreed cut off point, slate clean and start again scenario. It would seem that a private company was paying players for image rights, what is under investigation is who knew about it and did contravene the rules.

Forgot another point, it was also agreed there would be no relegation this season, now I don't believe it took into account any misdemeanours, so there may well be no option of relegation this season, not clear on that point however. 

RUGBY TONIGHT. Discussing the alleged salary cap infringement by Leicester Tigers. This is all very unpalatable to all Rugby fans and rekindles the unsavoury Saracens fiasco.