The UAFC

(x) if the term of the arrangement is different to the term of the Player’s player
contract with the Club, it will be less likely to be considered Salary;

Any payments or benefits in kind in connection with an individual sponsorship,
endorsement, merchandising, employment or other individual arrangement between
a Player (or any Connected Party of a Player) and any Connected Party of the Club or
Third Party which the Salary Cap Manager reasonably concludes on the balance of
probabilities should not be considered Salary, having taken into account the
following factors:
(i) if the arrangement is with a Connected Party, it will be more likely to be
considered Salary;
(ii) if the arrangement was negotiated and/or intended to be entered into at
arm’s length from the Player’s Club, it will be less likely to be considered
Salary;
(iii) if the arrangement was negotiated at or around the same time as the Playing
Contract for the Player, it will be more likely to be considered Salary;
(iv) if the obligations of the Player under the arrangement in question are linked
to his Club, it will be more likely to be considered Salary;
(v) if the obligations of the Connected Party/Third Party under the arrangement
are linked to the Club, it will be more likely to be considered Salary;
(vi) if the Player will be obliged to perform his obligations under the
arrangement either wholly or partly at the direction of his Club, it will be
more likely to be considered Salary;
(vii) if the Player will be required to perform his obligations under the
arrangement in his Club’s playing kit or other Club apparel, it will be more
likely to be considered Salary;
(viii) if the remuneration under the arrangement will be payable to the as and
when services are performed by the Player for the Connected Party/Third
Party (as opposed to in a lump sum or), it will be less likely to be considered
Salary;
(ix) if the arrangement is on terms typical of commercial contracts of that type ,
it will be less likely to be considered Salary;
(x) if the term of the arrangement is different to the term of the Player’s player
contract with the Club, it will be less likely to be considered Salary;
(xi) if a servant or agent of the Player’s Club was involved, whether directly or
indirectly, in securing for the Player the benefit of the arrangement, it will be
more likely to be considered Salary;
(xii) if the Connected Party/Third Party has entered into similar arrangements
with any other Player(s) from the Player’s Club, it will be more likely to be
considered Salary;
(xiii) if the Player is to be promoted by the Connected Party/Third Party as a
sportsman who is associated with the Connected Party/Third Party as
opposed to being promoted as a Player from his Club, it will be less likely to
be considered Salary;
2014/15 Regulations – Approved by the PRL Board on 9th June 2014 Page 42 of 56
(xiv) if the arrangement is with a Connected Party to a Club sponsor, it will be
more likely to be considered Salary;
(xv) if the remuneration payable to the Player exceeds the market value of the
services to be provided by the Player pursuant to the arrangement, it will be
more likely to be considered Salary; and
(xvi) any other matter that, in the opinion of the Salary Cap Manager in his
absolute discretion, ought to be taken into account

Times
The off-field politics that may pave the way for London club to reach the Premiership play-offs
The Aviva Premiership is set for a thriller today with three teams — Leicester Tigers, Exeter Chiefs and Saracens — vying for the remaining two places in the semi-finals. Fans of Leicester and Exeter, however, may well wonder if Saracens have the right to be there.
Until February 23, Saracens were to have been the subject of an investigation into a salary cap breach. However, in an extraordinary turn of events at a meeting at a London hotel that day, the Premiership clubs voted for the investigation to be suspended.
If found guilty of a breach, the minimum penalty is a four-point deduction. If, therefore, the investigation had continued and found Saracens guilty, they would probably be out of the play-offs and would possibly not have qualified for a place in next season’s European Champions Cup.
Saracens insist that they are not guilty of a breach. Nevertheless, a considerable coup was staged to prevent the investigation from reaching that conclusion. Which raises the question: why did the other clubs unanimously agree? Indeed, some of them left a long and hotly contested meeting that day asking that very same question. How did we let that happen?
Some clubs — Harlequins, Wasps, Gloucester, Sale Sharks and London Irish — are adamant that the investigation should not be buried for good. Their last stand that day was to haggle over the timing of when it should be unearthed. Saracens and the clubs who supported them wanted to push the date as far back as possible. When their opposition would not budge on this, they were finally forced to agree on the end of June.
When the investigation recommences, it will have 60 days to report. If Saracens are found in breach, then it remains highly likely that they would contest the legality of the salary cap in the European courts. This was one of the threats that was made to Premier Rugby Limited (PRL) — the umbrella organisation that runs the Premiership — in February. The entire salary cap system could be in jeopardy.
This was dismissed as mere “bluster” by one owner, whose legal advice was that European law does not apply to this salary cap rule because it was a shareholders’ agreement to which they had all signed up. Nevertheless, the threat was clear.
It was not the only threat, although the minutes of February 23 do not reflect this because a lot of significant dealings were conducted at a dinner of the club owners the night before. At and around that dinner, it was made known that unofficial conversations had been conducted with leading Irish and Welsh teams about the possibility of the top English clubs joining them in a breakaway super league.
These are not fantasy conversations; Irish and Welsh administrators confirm that such talks have occasionally taken place. However, while it is completely wrong to suggest that any breakaway is remotely on the table, it was certainly in the air as a scare tactic on February 23. One source said: “The breakaway was not discussed in open meeting at all. You know how impossible it would be. It is fantasy. They were trying to scaremonger more than anything else.”
There was light as well as shade. At the dinner, a proposal was made for the setting up of an executive committee of owners, the suggestion being that a group of intelligent entrepreneurs could do a successful job with smoother running of PRL. This suggestion seemed to pamper a few egos; the next suggestion was the suspension of the investigation.
By the time the meeting convened officially the next morning, it was clear that a cabal had been formed. There were 15 clubs represented by their chairmen or their chief executives — the 12 Premiership clubs plus Bristol, Worcester Warriors and Yorkshire Carnegie. In a bloc with Saracens were Bath, Exeter and Northampton Saints.
At the meeting, a proposal was put forward by Bruce Craig, the Bath owner. Craig’s package was a wide-ranging vision of the future that included subjects not previously on the meeting agenda: the end of promotion and relegation, the expansion to a 14-team league. Clearly this vision would appeal to the weaker clubs, whose businesses are perpetually under the threat of life in the Championship.
The proposal also pushed for a fairer deal for the clubs such as Bath and Harlequins, who regularly lose their best players to England duty. Crucially, it also incorporated a relaxing of the Premiership spending restrictions — the very ruling of which Saracens may have fallen foul.
The proposal was sold as a deal for the future. With so many people clearly feeling so uncomfortable about it, Craig’s was the dominant voice. As an influence, Craig can carry people with him and push them too. He has some cachet because he was the lead negotiator for the clubs when European club competition was falling apart last year. When they are digging in their heels, he likes to remind them that he was the man who, last season, saved their European competition.
Most of the owners of Premiership clubs spend the majority of their time on their own business and a small part of it on their rugby club. Craig is the other way round. He is so well versed in the rugby business that he managed to buy Will Genia, the Australia scrum half, and sell him on to Stade Français for a profit without the player even having pulled on a Bath shirt.
Yet why include the suspension of the investigation into Saracens in all this? One conclusion could be that the other clubs were under investigation too. Bath have always insisted that they are not. In fact, even the stakeholders present on February 23 do not know who is and who is not. Salary breach investigations are kept completely confidential. They only knew that Saracens were being investigated because Edward Griffiths, the Saracens chief executive at the time, told them so.
Those in favour of suspending the investigation were of the view that, to move forward, it was unhelpful to be digging up the past. The clubs in opposition were not convinced why, to improve the future, the rules for the present should suddenly be overlooked. And why should this have to be voted on as a package? League expansion, no relegation and the salary cap investigation suspension were all separate issues. Why bundle them into one?
There thus unfolded a day of heated exchanges, adjournments, private discussions and re-engagements, all of it chaired by Quentin Smith, the PRL chairman, whose day job happens to be a professional mediator.
To get the proposal through, a unanimous vote was required. Initial debate showed a group standing against it. This was whittled down to just Wasps and Harlequins.
Derek Richardson, of Wasps, dug in his heels and demanded a date for the unfreezing of the investigation. The offer he was given was after the clubs had completed their Heads of Agreement negotiations with the RFU — which could have been more than a year. He agreed to giving his vote only on the condition that the investigation was reactivated at the end of June.
That left Harlequins. The owner was abroad and uncontactable. Harlequins refused to sign. Only days later did they officially agree not to stand against the other clubs.
Thus the vote went 15-0. Who knows whether Saracens would be in the play-offs this weekend if it had not.

MightyRearranger wrote:Looks like the Saracens admin staff will be starting their summer holidays a bit late. There'll be a lot of shredding to get done if the investigation is going to start again in June (though I won't hold my breath).

Wee Woman wrote:

MightyRearranger wrote:Looks like the Saracens admin staff will be starting their summer holidays a bit late. There'll be a lot of shredding to get done if the investigation is going to start again in June (though I won't hold my breath).

Well they do need to justify the supposed £50K pa salary their supposedly on lol.