Life bans for salary cap cheats says Lord Myners
SALARY cap breaches in future could see clubs being stripped of their titles and suspended from the leagues.
Individual life bans have also been threatened in the report by former government minister Lord Myners who was asked by Premiership Rugby to review the salary cap regulations following the Saracens scandal.
Lord Myners undertook an extensive public consultation so anyone interested in professional club rugby, including supporters and players, could have their say on the future of the regulations.
Around 450 individuals and organisations responded and Lord Myners held follow-up interviews with some 200 stakeholders to discuss their views.
Lord Myners recommends:
■ Clubs to face relegation, suspension and the loss of titles and prize money for future breaches of the salary cap.
■ Central access to each club’s salary cap spreadsheet at all times.
■ Players to be deemed accountable and face a £250,000 fine and/or life ban for repeated offences.
■ The loss of 15pts for a £200,000 breach by clubs and up to 50pts for £650,000 plus.
■ Fit and proper test for owners and those deemed unfit compelled to sell their stakes in clubs.
■ Salary cap manager to be able to visit clubs without warning and request finacial reports.
■ Greater transparency with publication of breaches, disciplinary findings and sanctions.
■ Directors of clubs to be deemed accountable and face threat of life ban for repeat offences.
■ Enhanced enforcement resources with salary cap director and manager supported by an analyst.
■ Forensic audits to be compulsory when clubs are under suspicion.
■ Marquee player scheme to be reviewed due to fears about inflationary impact on clubs.
Lord Myners looked closely at the co-investment scheme run by Nigel Wray with several leading players at Saracens, which caused the club’s major breaches and sbsequent sanctions.
He states: “Advocates of the property arrangements in the Saracens case have pointed out that this is important for player welfare and protecting a player’s future after rugby. I am not convinced that any such scheme would be used to protect the welfare of all players equally.
“I consider it likely that the more extravagant schemes with a significant administrative burden, such as the property coownership arrangements, would be reserved for those who need it the least; namely the best and highest-paid players.
“For these reasons, my view is that these types of arrangements should not be allowed.”
The proposal for players to be held to account for the legitimacy of their own earnings within the cap is explained as a means of ensuring that the regulations have “real teeth”.
Lord Myners says: “A meaningful sanctions regime must be introduced in relation to players, agents, employees and club officials. It seems only sensible to tie players into the regulation obligations.”
The men in charge of rugby operations at each club would share responsibility for ensuring compliance with the cap — if the proposals are approved by ten or more of the 13 shareholding clubs.
Lord Myners states: “The CEO, chair, FD, director of rugby should be asked to sign a declaration statement confirming they have read the regulations and agree to abide by them.
“Any club official who knew, or should have known, about the breach of the salary cap and who has signed a false declaration or certification or has unreasonably failed to cooperate with salary cap regulations should be subject to sanctions including a ban from PRL for up to two years (first offence) or up to lifetime (subsequent offence).”
Lord Myners recommends a ‘fit and proper’ test for owners and suggests that those guilty of ‘seriously and systematically’ breaching the cap should be compelled to sell their controlling stake in the club.
There is grave concern expressed about self-governance.
“The clubs have been able to impose themselves on the administration of regulations, including the disciplinary process,” Lord Myners says.
“They have exercised the power to take matters into their own hands, thereby acting as judge and jury for fellow competitors.”
Lord Myners concludes: “It is important that my recommendations should be viewed as a package which will go a long way to restoring the integrity of the regulations.
“They should not be viewed as a menu of options from which to pick and choose.”