Thread by @brianmoore666

Warning - this is long and might be a bit boring to some but having now read the full 103 pages of Lord Dyson's Saracens salary cap disciplinary panel decision and PRL regulations this is a summary with comments my brief comments at the end.

So you can follow Premiership ("PRL") Saracens ("S")
Salary Cap Manager ("SCM") Salary cap year ("SCY")
From the judgement I mention the following -

1.Sarries took prelim point that cap unlawful due to competition law

2. However 2 witnesses including Wray said a salary cap was desirable and they were party to original cap and to its retention. Approved changes from 2014/15 onwards.
3.S suggestion of Mark McCafferty’s evidence not credible, inaccurate and untruthful. Dismissed as unjustified.

4.Reg 6.13 if club wishes to clarify meaning or applicability it should contact SCM who is bound to respond
5. SCM decisions reviewed as to reasonableness, not de novo, though in many instances they state they would have decided similar to SCM

6. There are 2 Key clauses re deciding what is salary -
a. any payment or benefit in kind which the player would not have received if it were not for his involvement with the club.
b. Any loan made to player under which he is not contracted to repay in full within the SCY

7. Of the various schemes that were under dispute full details were not made available to SCM until investigation.

8. Of those schemes -

Property investments – negative equity risk born by Wray not player and loan is interest free. Not commercial transactions because parties do not share the risk in the manner of an equity contributor & not similarly available in normal business.

MBN promotion personal appearances – MBN & S very closely associated, owned partly by Wray's daughter - no contract for any of the three years; full sum paid before appearances which, due to no contract, were not obligatory.

9. Because of those findings the payments were properly deemed as salary.
10. The Regulations have set and agreed monetary penalties and points deduction on sliding scale dependent on amount of breach
11. S accepted sanctions for non-disclosure charges

12.PRL said Strict application of sanctions would mean £5.36 m fine and 70-point deduction. (35 for 2 seasons according to agreed scale) Panel said no reason to decrease points deduction for each season for the following reasons -

a. S did not admit breach, challenged each substantive one and submitted Regulations illegal
b. Breaches not deliberate but were reckless
c. S previously found guilty of refusing to cooperate in 2015 and settled accepting sanctions
d. S did not cooperate with SCM

13. Why Panel concluded recklessness -
a. Admitted breaches over 4 years of failure to disclose information
b. Failure to consult SCM before entering schemes that must have known were risky
c. This failure to consult was more serious in the light of the 2015 settlement

14. Panel said it was arguable that in the light of this behaviour there could be an increase points deduction but PRL had not asked for this.

15. It wasn't unfair to impose penalties according to regulations (35 pt. deduction for 2 seasons breaches) but 70 if imposed in one season would be disproportionate and -35 sufficient.

16. Reg 16 allows a plea-bargaining process which can mitigate sanctions – S chose not to use this and contested all material points

My Points -

A. Saracens are a golden shareholder in PRL. They are responsible for its running and regulations as much as any other club and agreed the details of the previous and current salary cap rules. It is ludicrous to allege rules you voluntarily adopt are illegal

B. It is no defence at all to say that you did not deliberately break rules which you agree and over which you have already had to settle previous charges. The panel did not find S innocently broke the rules; it said they were reckless

C. Sanctions were actually minimised by panel from those which could have been imposed strictly.
D. The extra 35-point deduction was imposed for breaches which S admitted would take place this after this judgement