RFU threat for Saracens
Scandal-hit giants could face misconduct charge
Saracens could face further disciplinary action over their salary-cap breaches, with the Rugby Football Union understood to be considering an investigation to determine if the Premiership club should be charged with misconduct or bringing the game into disrepute.
It is understood that the governing body is going through details of the decision by Premiership Rugby on Saturday to relegate the English and European champions to the Championship next season.
Also under scrutiny is the original 103-page judgment, which included a 35-point deduction as well as a £5.36million fine for the club for breaching the salary cap over the previous three seasons, and was published in November following an independent hearing chaired by Lord Dyson.
It is thought that the RFU’S legal and governance team are reviewing the judgment to determine if any of the club’s misdemeanours meet the threshold of a misconduct or disrepute charge. If a prima facie case is proven, then disciplinary hearings could follow.
It is understood that the RFU has also privately expressed to Premiership Rugby that the report following the disciplinary hearing in November should be made public in some form.
That is a view shared within Premiership Rugby, although chief executive Darren Childs said that
Saracens had asked for it not to be published.
RFU regulations state the governing body can sanction “any conduct, behaviour or practices on or off the playing enclosure, in connection with a match or the game generally, that is unsporting, unruly, ill-disciplined, brings or has the potential to bring the sport of rugby union, the RFU, or its commercial partners into disrepute, or which is prejudicial to the interests of the RFU or the game”.
It is not yet clear what range of sanctions Saracens could face if they were charged and found guilty of a misconduct charge, given the exceptional circumstances, although they would include a fine.
It is understood that discussions within the RFU have escalated since Premiership Rugby confirmed Saracens’ relegation.
On Monday, Bristol owner Steve Lansdown accused Saracens of bringing the game into disrepute by their actions, then last night Graeme Cattermole, a former chairman of the RFU management board, said the governing body should take action.
“I feel sorry for the players but I believe those in charge of the club, such as members of the board, should be charged by the RFU for bringing the game into disrepute under rule 5.12,” Cattermole said.
“I feel that the action of exceeding the salary cap could only have been deliberate and undertaken knowingly by the individuals in charge and they should be disciplined.”
The future of Saracens players also remains unclear, although sources suggested that England head coach Eddie Jones may take a relaxed view about some of his leading internationals playing in the second tier next season if a conditioning programme were put in place to ensure his players arrived in camp ahead of Test matches fresh and in good shape.
Premiership Rugby yesterday vowed to take drastic action to ensure that the scandal never happened again.
Childs said Saracens would be barred from securing a place in the top-four play-offs, thus preventing them from reaching this season’s Premiership final at Twickenham in the unlikely event that they did so, even with the 35-point deduction.
The club finishing fifth would qualify in that scenario. Saracens are 29 points behind fourth-placed Sale, with 70 points to play for.
Childs also said that Premiership Rugby expected to have strengthened salary-cap regulations and investigation powers by May following a review by Lord Myners to prevent another scandal, having admitted that the current regulations had been founded on an element of trust.
“Saracens will be going to the Championship next year and then they will be coming back to a whole new set of salary-cap regulations because they will be post the Myners review and we are hoping we will get those new regulations adopted by April and May of this year,” said Childs.
“The salary-cap regs are really clear about what is in and what is out.”